Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Geotechnical
Design Manual
Volume 1
0
Oregon Department of Transportation
List of Tables
Table 2-1. Geology / Geotechnical Matrix Checklist QC Check #1 – Scoping.........................2-18
Table 2-2. Geology / Geotechnical Matrix Checklist QC Check #2 – Scope of Work..............2-19
Table 2-3. Geology / Geotechnical Matrix Checklist QC Check # 3 – EIS...............................2-20
Table 2-4. Geology / Geotechnical Matrix Checklist QC Check # 4 – Concept.......................2-21
Table 2-5. Geology / Geotechnical Matrix Checklist QC Check #5 – Exploration Plan (10%
TS&L).......................................................................................................................... 2-22
Table 2-6. Geology / Geotechnical Matrix Checklist QC Check #6 – 2/3 TS&L)......................2-23
Table 2-7. Geology / Geotechnical Matrix Checklist QC Check #7 – Preliminary Plans..........2-29
Table 2-8. Geology / Geotechnical Matrix Checklist QC Check #8 – Advanced Plans............2-32
Table 2-9. Geology / Geotechnical Matrix Checklist QC Check #9 – Final Plans....................2-33
Table 3-1. Tunneling and Trenchless Pipe Installation Recommendations..............................3-19
Table 3-2. Specific field investigation requirements................................................................3-23
Table 5-1. Correlation of SPT N values to drained friction angle of granular soils (modified after
Bowles, 1977)............................................................................................................... 5-6
Table 6-1. Summary of site characterization needs and testing considerations for seismic design
(adapted from Sabatini, et al., 2002)...........................................................................6-13
Table 6-2. Correlations for estimating initial shear modulus (Kavazajjian, et al., 1997)...........6-15
Table 8-1. Summary of information needs and testing considerations......................................8-2
1
1 Introduction
1.1 General
The ODOT Geotechnical Design Manual (GDM) establishes standard policies and procedures
regarding geotechnical work performed for ODOT. The manual covers geotechnical investigations,
analysis, design and reporting for earthwork and structures for highways. The purpose of the
geotechnical investigation and design recommendations is to furnish information for an optimum
design which will minimize over-conservatism as well as to minimize under-design and the resulting
failures commonly and mistakenly attributed to unforeseen conditions.
It is to be understood that any geotechnical investigation and design will leave certain areas
unexplored. Further, it must also be understood that it would be impractical to provide a rigid set of
specifications for all possible cases. Therefore, this manual will not address all subsurface problems
and leaves many areas where individual engineering judgment must be used. It is intended that the
procedures discussed in this manual will establish a reasonable and uniform set of policies and
procedures while maintaining sufficient flexibility to permit the application of engineering analysis to
the solution of geotechnical problems.
This manual references publications which present specific engineering design and construction
procedures or laboratory testing procedures. Each chapter contains a listing of associated
references for the subject area of the chapter. Among the commonly referenced materials are the
publications of the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM). Relative to testing and design procedures, the methods presented by AASHTO and FHWA
are often followed.
Figures presented in the manual have been redrafted from the original published figures. The figures
in this GDM are only to be used for illustrative purposes and should not be used for design.
1.1.1 Acknowledgments
This ODOT Geotechnical Design Manual is a completely new manual and is the product of the
combined efforts of the personnel in the HQ Engineering and Asset Management Unit. Thanks for
their work and appreciation for their contributions are extended here. Continued work is required to
edit and update the manual and their help will be appreciated in the future. An additional thanks and
After reviewing the written proposal for completeness, the Engineering and Asset
Management Unit will either:
Accept, without further review, manual corrections for inclusion in the GDM, or
Distribute a copy with the due date and a Geotechnical Design Practice Approval
Form for review and comments.
After reviewing the returned Geotechnical Design Practice Approval Forms, the Engineering
and Asset Management Unit will do one of the following:
Proposals approved for revision of the GDM will be implemented in a technical
bulletin and will be placed into the next upcoming version of the GDM, or
Proposals needing more research or clarification will be returned to the originator for
revision and resubmittal.
Regardless of whether or not a proposal is accepted, the Engineering and Asset
Management Unit will reply in writing to the person making the submittal.
4. Implementation of Approved Revision
After a proposal has final approval, a revised GDM page will be prepared for inclusion into
the manual. A vertical line in the right-hand margin of a revised page indicated that the text
has been revised or added. The word “REVISION” and the year are printed in the bottom
margin to the right. This system is similar to that used by AASHTO to revise its Standard
Specifications.
Proposals will be incorporated electronically into the GDM on the ODOT Geo-Environmental
web page as soon as practical.
2
2 Project Geotechnical Planning
2.1 General
General geotechnical planning for projects with significant grading, earthworks, and structure
foundations, from the earliest project concept plan through final project design are addressed in this
chapter. Detailed geotechnical exploration and testing requirements for individual design are covered
in detail in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, and Chapter 5. This chapter also provides direction for
geotechnical project definition and creation of the subsurface exploration plan for the project design
phases. General guidelines for subsurface investigations are provided in Chapter 3 in addition to
specific guidelines regarding the number and types of explorations for project design of specific
geotechnical features.
The success of a project is directly related to the early involvement of the geotechnical designers in
the design process. For larger projects that involve an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), the
geotechnical designer needs to be involved with the assessment of various options or corridor
selections. Ideally, for all projects, the geotechnical designer will be involved during the first scoping
efforts. At this point, a study of the project concept is begun by gathering all existing site data and
determining the critical features of the project. This information can then be presented at the project
kick-off meeting and/or scoping trip. The project scoping trip is a valuable opportunity to introduce
the roadway and structural designers, and project leaders to the geologic/geotechnical issues that
are expected to impact the project. Continued good communication between the geotechnical
designer and the project leader and project team is vital.
2 . 2 . 1 . 1 P r o j e c t S c a l e an d A s s i g n m e n t o f R e so u r c e s
Geotechnical designers should use their professional judgment with respect to the scope, scale, and
amount of resources to utilize during preliminary project studies. Larger projects obviously
necessitate a greater effort in the early examination of background materials such as previous
reports for an area, maps, published literature, aerial photographs and other remote sensing.
Even the smallest bridge replacement or grading project, background study is just as important, and
although of a smaller scale, should be carried out with the same diligence as a similar study for a
major realignment. A thorough and expedient background study is essential for these smaller
projects since unforeseen conditions and additional unplanned field investigations are much more
difficult to absorb in a smaller project budget. It follows that for a larger project; a more thorough
background investigation is warranted since unforeseen conditions can have a compounding effect
during design and construction that may impact even the most generously funded projects.
The amount of background research needed for a project is usually unknown until the study begins
and the potential site conditions are assessed to some degree. It is up to the geotechnical designer
to determine the amount of background study needed and the cost-benefit of such studies with
respect to the project design.
Using Remote Sensing and Existing Information
2 . 2 . 4 . 2 C o n s t r u c t i o n R e co r d s
Since most current ODOT projects are modernization, replacement, or rehabilitations of existing
transportation facilities, construction records are commonly available from various sources
throughout the agency. Such records may be in the form of as-built plans, construction reports, pile-
driving records, and other technical memoranda addressing specific issues and recommendations
during project construction. Locate information using:
As-built plans: As-built plans are normally located in the region office where the project was
constructed. The Geometronics Unit maintains the engineering documents in Room 29 of
the Transportation Building in Salem where mylars of project plans reside in addition to some
of the as-built plans.
Pile records: Pile record books are maintained by the headquarters office of the Bridge
Section.
Region project engineers and construction project managers that have completed previous projects
in the area should be consulted with respect to the geologic/geotechnical conditions as well as the
construction issues related to those conditions. In addition, section maintenance personnel with a
long history in an area will posses a wealth of information regarding the performance of existing
facilities, problems encountered, and repair activities that have taken place at a particular site.
ODOT currently stores LiDAR bare-earth and reflective imagery files on the GIS server as hillshade
images and Digital Elevation Models (DEM) files. This server is accessible on the ODOT system and
located at:
\\Sn-salemmill-1\GIS\IMAGES\LIDAR.
2 . 2 . 5 . 2 Ve r i f i c a t i o n o f O f f i ce S t u d y a n d S i t e O b s e r v at i o n s
The topography and geomorphology of a site should be reconciled in the field with what was
anticipated in the office study and shown on any maps or aerial photographs. Review and assess
the following:
Outcroppings, road cuts, stream beds, and any other subsurface exposures should be noted
to verify the anticipated conditions based on the published geologic maps and literature. The
presence of artificial fills should be noted and described with respect to its composition, lateral
extent, and estimated volume.
Surface waters, springs, wetlands and other potentially sensitive areas that may impact the
project work should also be noted. In addition, an effort should be made to identify the 2-year
flood zone for future reference.
2.3 References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Inc., 1988, Manual on
Subsurface Investigations.
C.H. Dowding, Ed., Site Characterization & Exploration, ASCE Specialty Workshop Proceedings,
Northwestern University, 1978.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Evaluation of Soil and
Rock Properties, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, FHWA-IF-02-034, April, 2002.
Turner, Keith A., and Schuster, Robert L., Eds., LANDSLIDES Investigation and Mitigation,
Transportation Research Board Special Report 247, 1996, Pages 140-163.
Geotechnical Investigations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering and Design Manual,
EM 1110-1-1804, January 2001.
3
3 Field Investigation
3.1 Introduction
For any transportation project that has components supported on or in the earth, there is a need for
subsurface information and geotechnical data during its planning, design, and construction phases.
Any geologic feature that affects the design and construction phase of a project, or has a bearing on
site or corridor selection in terms of hazards and/or economics must be investigated and analyzed.
Of equal importance is the clear and accurate portrayal of these conditions in a format that is
accessible and understandable by all users.
Consider the following during field investigation:
Subsurface investigation: The objectives of a subsurface investigation are the provision of
general information on the subsurface conditions of soil, rock and water, and specific
information concerning the soil and rock properties that are necessary for the project
geotechnical design and construction.
Scale of investigation: For transportation projects in Oregon, the appropriate scale of
investigation must be carefully considered. Because of Oregon’s geology and geography,
subsurface conditions are complex and may vary widely over short distances. A more
thorough investigation will provide additional information that will generally decrease the
probability of encountering unforeseen conditions during construction, and increase the
quality and economy of the geotechnical design of a project.
Balance of investigation: Time and fiscal considerations will constrain the scale and
resolution of the field investigation. Therefore; the geotechnical designer must balance the
exploration costs with the information required and the acceptable risks.
The technical decisions and details required for site investigations require the input of trained and
experienced professionals. Every site has its own particular circumstances, and diverse geologic
conditions, professional experience, available equipment, and the previously described time and
budgetary restraints all contribute to the most cost-effective site investigations. The implications of
site-specific geologic conditions for the type of proposed facility must be investigated for each project.
The remainder of this chapter describes established ODOT criteria to be used in field investigations
as well as information on any areas where ODOT’s criteria differs from the FHWA and AASHTO
guidelines. More information can also be found in the Federal Highway Administration Subsurface
Investigations - Geotechnical Site Characterization Reference Manual (FHWA NHI-01-031).
3.2.1.1 Phase 1
For the Field Survey and/or Alternative Design phases (Usually described as “Phase 1”) of a project,
the information gathered from the office study is usually sufficient for preliminary
geologic/geotechnical input to the project team and for completion of the Soils and Geology chapter
of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). In the case of a large and/or complex project, or if
geologic conditions will have a major impact on the design and construction of a project, then some
amount of subsurface investigation will be warranted to determine the exact location and extent of
the problems and to devise some preliminary cost estimates and alternatives. Ideally, when
performing a subsurface investigation during Phase 1, the exploration would be situated at the
location of a major project feature that would be investigated later during project design. However, as
this occurs early in the project, or certain other alternatives are under consideration, the precise
locations of bridge bents and final alignments may not be known.
3.2.1.2 Phase 2
The project design phase (Field Survey up to Preliminary Plans, usually referred to as “Phase 2”) is
where the most intense and focused subsurface investigation occurs for specific project features.
Wherever possible, the project design or Phase 2 investigation should capitalize on any previous
explorations in the project area. Personnel responsible for the field investigation and geotechnical
design should determine the utility of this information.
The project design phase subsurface exploration and testing program provides the geotechnical data
specifically required by the project’s geotechnical design team. The investigation provides the
aforementioned informational needs for the foundation and earthworks design as well as:
Additional information applicable to other related project elements such as the chemical
properties of soil with respect to corrosion of structural elements, and issues associated with
environmental protection and erosion control.
The project geotechnical design analyses, decisions, and recommendations for construction
will be based on the information gathered during the Phase 2 investigations.
For these reasons, the information gathered during this phase of investigation should achieve a
degree of accuracy, thoroughness of coverage, and relevancy to support the project design decisions
and to allow for realistically accurate estimates of geotechnical bid items.
3 . 3 . 1 . 1 M i n i m u m R e q u i r e m e n t s f o r S u b su r f a c e
Investigations
This does not however, preclude the necessity of established minimum requirements for subsurface
investigations. The base level of investigation has value as an initial approach to a subsurface
investigation and for preliminary cost estimation of exploration activities as well as assuring that some
uniform amount of exploration is accomplished for all geotechnical design. The minimum standards
for subsurface investigations are well-defined in the 1988 AASHTO Manual on Subsurface
Investigations and are broadly accepted in the practice.
3 . 3 . 1 . 2 R i s k To l e r a n c e
Further consideration in the development of the Exploration Plan should be given to developing an
assessment of the risk tolerance of the project to unforeseen subsurface conditions. In this regard,
an assessment of the risks assumed by the constructability and function of the design feature without
the benefit of site-specific subsurface information should be conducted with respect to the potential
for cost overruns during construction and to potential for long term maintenance or increased lifecycle
costs. The cost of an over conservative design resulting from a hedge against unknown subsurface
conditions is another aspect of risk that should also be evaluated. This is where a design is forced to
be based on the worst possible condition known to be present or perceived at a site in order to
prevent failure because the lack of information precludes the assessment of other alternatives.
Generally, an evaluation of the potential risks at a project site occurs as exploration progresses and
the variability of the subsurface is discovered.
3 . 3 . 1 . 4 S u b s u r f a c e I n v es t i g a t i o n S t r a t e g y
An important strategy when conducting the subsurface investigation is to complete the most
important explorations first with the idea that the project schedule may change, funding may be
terminated, or some other decisions made that preclude the completion of all the planned borings.
From this standpoint, the important borings are those that:
1. provide information about geologic hazards affecting the project or that require monitoring for
mitigation design,
2. provide the information that the engineer needs to design the most critical structures, and
3. again, those locations that provide the most amount of information for the lowest expenditure.
This approach to the subsurface investigation allows design to proceed in the event of the inevitable
project schedule or other priority shifts that may have a more urgent need for geologic or
geotechnical resources. It is quite common for a planned exploration to be interrupted by the needs
of emergency repair work or other critical-path project, and having these explorations complete first
allows engineers to continue work on a project rather than having to wait for the emergency to pass
before getting the information they need to continue so that the interrupted project doesn’t become
an emergency itself.
Note:
We recommend referring to Section 7.4.1 AASHTO which provides additional items to consider in
determining the layout of a project subsurface investigation in addition to prioritization of the
explorations. This bulleted list describes key issues in determining importance and priority of
explorations from locations to structures that they are intended for as well as the use of less or even
more expensive methods for investigation that may be required.
3 . 3 . 1 . 5 S c h e d u l e o f Su b su r f a c e I n v e st i g at i o n s
Subsurface investigations are ideally completed as early in the project as possible to allow sufficient
time for geotechnical design, quantity estimation, and consideration of alternatives. Clearly, many of
the project features must already be known to some degree before the Exploration Plan can be
formulated. Right-of-way needs must be established to determine cut and fill slope angles and
heights or the need for retaining structures. Even more detailed plans are needed to begin bridge
foundation investigations. Typically, the bridge type, size, and location (commonly referred to as
“TS&L) must be known in order to obtain ground-truth information at the precise bent locations.
Completion of Exploration Plan
Because of these informational prerequisites, the Exploration Plan is usually completed soon after
initiation of the structure TS&L phase with a goal for completion set at the 10% of TS&L completion
with respect to its timeline. The target for completion of preliminary geotechnical recommendations is
set at 2/3 TS&L.
In order to meet this date, there will be less than 50% of the TS&L timeline to complete the
subsurface investigation and provide the needed information to the geotechnical designer charged
with making the preliminary recommendations.
3 . 3 . 1 . 7 R i g h t - o f - Wa y a n d P e r m i t s o f E n t r y
Determining the exact boundaries of the State’s right-of-way during exploration planning is essential
since this demarcation is very commonly not correlative to the highway centerline nor does it fall at a
constant length perpendicular to it. Current right-of-way maps should be consulted to assure the
correct property ownership at the exploration site or for any land that must be traversed by
exploration equipment and personnel.
Permits of entry (also known as “Right-of-Entry Permits”) are required for any site exploration outside
of the highway right-of-way whether the site is on private property or on public lands outside the
jurisdiction of ODOT. For simple cases, these permits can be obtained by the geotechnical designer
in charge of the exploration or other staff. For most circumstances however; these permits should be
obtained by the Region’s Right-of-Way section. In either case, the region Right-of-Way section
should be consulted prior to any entry onto private property. A sample Permit of Entry Form is
included in Appendix 3-A.
Each permit of entry form should be accompanied by a site map showing the precise location of the
exploration with respect to property lines and any structures or features on the private property.
Considerable delay in the exploration timeline can stem from the permit of entry process. In many
cases, property owners are unaware of upcoming transportation projects until a geologist or
geotechnical engineer asks them for a permit-of-entry for exploration. Even if unopposed or
unaffected by the project, the owner may be reluctant to sign a permit of entry for a variety of
reasons.
Often, further explanation of the activity and its purpose will be all that is necessary, or just allowing
extra time for consideration is all that is required, but will affect the exploration schedule nevertheless.
How to Handle Problems Obtaining Access to Property for Field Investigation
In some cases, landowners are particularly slow in granting access to their property for whatever
reason and may even respond to a request for a permit of entry with a letter from their legal council.
In these instances, the Region right-of-way office should be contacted immediately to take a
lead role in negotiations to resolve the issue. Although the Agency has the statutory authority to
access any real property for the purpose of survey or exploration, it is an exceedingly rare case for
ODOT to exercise this authority for subsurface investigation. The cause for performing a subsurface
investigation on such a property must be well-founded and without feasible alternatives.
3 . 3 . 1 . 8 U t i l i t y L o c a t i o n / N o t i f i ca t i o n
Underground and overhead utilities in the project area must be identified and approximately located
early in the Exploration Plan development. The presence of utilities may dictate the location of, or
access to exploration points.
Warning:
Encountering underground utilities during site investigations can be detrimental to the exploration
schedule and budget. Digging or drilling into underground utilities or contacting overhead power
lines with drill rig masts or backhoe arms can be lethal. For these reasons, the exact location of all
utilities must be determined before any equipment is mobilized to the project site.
Utility Notification Center
3 . 5 . 2 . 1 S p a c i n g a n d L a yo u t S t r a t eg i e s
Because transportation projects are typically linear, explorations tend to be channeled into a relatively
straight and narrow corridor, and are often laid out only along the centerline of many features. This
should be avoided as it most often results in poor development of the subsurface model. To avoid
this, boreholes should be spread out to either side of the centerline to help determine the strike and
dip of the underlying strata, the nature of the contacts (i.e. conformal or non-conformal), and other
changes or irregularities across the subsurface profile. Exploration to reveal or characterize geologic
hazards such as faults and landslides that affect the proposed project may necessarily be conducted
outside of the proposed alignment(s). Material source or disposal site investigations normally take
place far away from the project alignment and will have different exploration spacing criteria.
Take special care when conducting explorations in particular alignments and foundation locations.
Certain geologic conditions, such as openwork cobbles and boulders, heaving sands, or highly
fractured rock may bind exploration tools severely enough that the drill crew is unable to retrieve
them from the hole where they subsequently form an obstruction during drilled shafts construction. In
areas that experience high artesian pressures, improperly sealed boreholes may form an undesirable
conduit for groundwater to enter footing excavations, cut slopes, or cofferdams.
Note:
All borings should be abandoned in accordance to Oregon Water Resources Department
Regulations to prevent vertical water migration. Provision should also be made to extract bound
drilling tools from the boring with special equipment.
The boring layout guidelines presented here are of a general nature and are intended for use in the
preliminary location of site exploration points. The final exploration locations should be developed as
the site investigation proceeds. Information must be incorporated into the Exploration Plan as it
becomes available to assure the most complete, cost-effective outcome.
3 . 5 . 2 . 3 S u b g r a d e Bo r i n g s
Where relatively unvarying subsurface conditions are predicted and no other foundations or
earthworks are expected, the maximum subgrade boring spacing should be 200 feet (61m). In areas
where highly variably geology is predicted, the boring spacing should be decreased to 100 feet (30m)
and further decreased to 50 feet (15m) in highly erratic conditions. Where critical subgrade
conditions exist, the boring spacing may be decreased to 25 feet (8m).
Alternate exploration methods may be used in variable geologic conditions to supplement the borings
and further resolve the characteristics and distribution of problematic materials and conditions. Such
methods may include hand augers, push-probes, geoprobes, and test pits.
Test pits
Test pits on short intervals (25 feet/8meters) are not recommended due to the potential introduction of
soft areas in the subgrade where the pits were located. If necessary, this problem may be alleviated
by the use of compacted granular backfill materials to abandon the test pits after exploration. The
test pit spoils would then need to be disposed of off-site. Several geophysical survey methods may
also be appropriate for subgrade investigations to supplement the test boring information. Seismic
reflection and electro-magnetic methods are commonly the best-suited for determining material
property boundaries and saturated or water-bearing zones.
3 . 5 . 2 . 4 Tu n n e l a n d Tr e n ch l e s s P i p e I n s t a l l a t i o n Bo r i n g s
Tunnel construction for highway projects in Oregon is rare; however, trenchless pipe installation is
common. Tunnels and trenchless pipe installations share many common construction and design
issues and are thus treated in a similar manner with respect to subsurface characterization and
exploration. Borehole spacing requirements for tunneling and trenchless pipe installation are highly
dependent on the site geologic conditions and topography. The soil, rock, or mixed-face conditions
predicted will determine the borehole spacing as well as the type of exploration and testing
conducted. The depth of the tunnel/trenchless pipe alignment will greatly influence the total amount
of drilling required.
The actual borehole spacing selected for tunnel or trenchless pipe installation should be determined
by the actual site conditions. These conditions should be identified in advance by preliminary site
review, and in the case of larger projects, preliminary site investigations conducted during the Phase I
field survey. The recommended general borehole spacing for selected conditions is shown in the
following table:
Recommendations
Soft Ground Tunneling
Adverse Conditions 50-100 feet (15-30m)
Favorable Conditions 200-300 feet (61-91m)
Mixed-Face Tunneling
Adverse Conditions 25-50 feet (8-15m)
Favorable Conditions 50-75 feet (15-23m)
In addition to the geologic conditions, other site constraints will equally determine the number and
spacing of borings for tunnels and trenchless pipe installations. The location of existing structures
with respect to the proposed depths and alignments will necessitate a more detailed investigation at
those locations.
Geophysical surveys may also be used in conjunction with the borings to further define the geologic
conditions and to help determine the final boring layouts as defined below.
Wherever possible, horizontal borings should be taken along the proposed tunnel alignment.
Current technology and contractor capabilities allow longer and more accurate horizontal
borings that provide essential information regarding the expected tunnel face conditions.
Trenchless pipe installations through existing embankments can and should be fully
penetrated by horizontal borings to determine the conditions along the full length of the
trenchless installation. Because the horizontal borings do not reveal the conditions above
and below the tunnel/trenchless pipe installation horizons, vertical borings are still required.
Clearly, tunnels with horizontal and vertical curves will be difficult to investigate with horizontal
borings, but as technology advances, methods may soon be available to steer borings along these
alignments.
3 . 5 . 2 . 5 S t r u c t u r e - S p e c i f i c Bo r i n g s
The actual number and spacing for borings for specific structures varies greatly depending on the
predicted geologic conditions and the complexity of the site. In this regard, nearby features such as
streams and environmentally sensitive areas, geologic hazards, and nearby structures will further
prescribe the actual amount of exploration required.
Bridges
The depth of the borings will vary depending on the expected loads being
applied to the foundation and/or site soil conditions. All borings should be
extended to a depth below the bottom elevation of the building foundation a
minimum of 2.5 times the width of the spread footing foundation or 1.5 times the
length of a deep foundation (i.e., piles or shafts). Exploration depth should be
great enough to fully penetrate soft highly compressible soils (e.g., peat, organic
silt, soft fine grained soils) into competent material suitable for bearing capacity
(e.g., stiff to hard cohesive soil, compact dense cohesionless soil or bedrock).
In addition to the exploration requirements in Table 3-11. Specific field investigation requirements,
groundwater measurements, conducted in accordance with Chapter 3, should be obtained if
groundwater is anticipated within the minimum required depths of the borings as described herein.
3 . 5 . 2 . 6 C r i t i c a l - A r e a I n v e st i g a t i o n s
In areas where critical geologic conditions or hazards such as highly irregular bedrock surfaces,
extremely weathered or altered rock, compressible materials, and caverns or abandoned
underground facilities are predicted from detailed background study or preliminary exploration, it may
be necessary to further investigate the area with additional explorations. Such investigations
normally involve drilling on a grid pattern over the area in question. An initial, wider grid pattern may
be selected to locate the area of most concern with a closer grid pattern used later to further
characterize the area of concern. Grid pattern investigations may consist of hand auger holes, direct
push holes, or cone penetrometers in addition to the more conventional test borings. Geophysical
surveys may also be used to establish or refine the boundaries of the grid pattern investigation.
3.5.2.7 Landslides
The number and layout of test borings for landslide investigation depends upon the size and nature
of the landslide itself and on the results of detailed site mapping and initial subsurface models based
on the mapping. Since information about the subsurface is unknown initially, landslide investigation
largely becomes an iterative process as new data obtained provides information that is used to
further develop enough knowledge of the landslide to begin stability analysis.
The approach to landslide investigation is very complex and involves numerous techniques and
procedures, and is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 13. This chapter is intended to convey a
general sense of the layout of the borings needed for a “typical” landslide investigation.
3 . 5 . 3 . 1 Te r m i n a t i o n D e p t h s
When competent bedrock is encountered, test borings may generally be terminated after penetrating
15 feet (4.5m) into it. Where very heavy loads are anticipated, test borings may be extended to a
considerable depth into the bedrock depending on its characteristics and verification that it is
underlain by materials of equal or greater strength. For most structures, it is advisable to extend at
least one boring into the underlying bedrock even when the remaining borings are terminated in soils
of adequate bearing capacity.
As with all other aspects of subsurface investigation, considerable professional judgment is needed
to determine the final depths of planned explorations. Generally, previous subsurface information is
needed to determine the approximate depth of the proposed borings on the Exploration Plan. Where
this information is unavailable, general guidelines can be used to establish the preliminary exploration
depths and quantities. These guidelines are outlined for specific geotechnical features in the
following sections.
3 . 5 . 3 . 2 E m b a n k m e n t a n d C u t S l o p e E x p l o r a t i o n D ep t h s
For embankments of 10 feet (3m) or greater in height, the test borings should penetrate from 2 to 4
times the proposed fill height or more depending on the final width of the roadway and the actual
materials encountered. If suitable foundation materials are encountered such as dense granular soils
or bedrock, the depth may be decreased up to a minimum depth equaling the height of the
embankment. Where confined aquifers with artesian pressures or liquefiable soils are present, the
exploration depth should be extended to fully penetrate these units.
3 . 5 . 3 . 3 S u b g r a d e Bo r i n g s
Where minor amounts of earthwork (cut slopes less than 10 feet (3m) deep) for the alignment profile
are expected, test borings and test pits should extend 15 feet (4.5m) below the proposed final grade
elevation. Where bedrock or other hard materials are encountered, coring should be extended 15
feet (4.5m) into the hard stratum to evaluate their conditions. For fill areas less than 10 feet (3m)
high, explorations should extend to 15 feet (4.5m) below the original ground surface unless
questionable materials are encountered. If soft, organic or other deleterious materials are
encountered in subgrade borings, the depth of exploration should be increased as necessary to fully
evaluate those materials.
3 . 5 . 3 . 4 Tu n n e l a n d Tr e n ch l e s s P i p e I n s t a l l a t i o n Bo r i n g s
A “rule-of-thumb” for tunnel exploration is the amount of exploration drilling should be 1.5 times the
length of the tunnel. This should be considered as a bare minimum for exploration cost estimating for
tunnel/trenchless installation projects will shallow alignments in very favorable conditions, and does
not include horizontal drilling along the tunnel/pipe profile. Clearly, the amount of drilling for any given
length of tunnel/trenchless installation alignment is dependent on several factors that include, among
others, the depth of the invert, diameter of the tunnel/pipe, geologic conditions, and contingencies.
Typically, tunnel/trenchless installation borings should be extended at least 1.5 tunnel/pipe diameters
below the proposed grade of the invert. It may be beneficial to further extend the borings to as much
as 3 times the tunnel/pipe diameter as a contingency if the final tunnel alignment has not been
determined. The depth of the borings should be increased further to evaluate any unforeseen or
unfavorable geologic conditions encountered that may impact the tunnel or pipe design and
construction. Wherever practical, horizontal borings should be taken along the tunnel profile because
of the advantages of having a full-length representation of the actual tunnel/pipe horizon conditions.
3 . 5 . 3 . 5 S t r u c t u r e - S p e c i f i c Bo r i n g s
The guidelines for boring depths presented in Section 3.5.3 Exploration Depths stem from
structure-specific boring guidelines developed by AASHTO and other agencies. Follow these
guidelines:
It is highly desirable for all structure-specific borings to penetrate at least 15 feet (4.5m) into
bedrock.
For drilled shaft installations, the test borings should be advanced 1.25 times the total
projected shaft length beyond the predicted shaft base elevation.
If the shaft base is to be founded in soil or rock with an RQD of 50% or less, then the test
borings should be extended an additional depth below the proposed bottom of the shaft equal
to the larger of 20 feet (6m) or 3 times the shaft base diameter. Shafts are most commonly
designed to bear on competent bedrock, thus, where the RQD is greater than 50%, the test
boring should also be advanced to the greater of 20 feet (6m) or 3 times the shaft base
diameter below the estimated shaft base elevation.
3 . 5 . 3 . 6 C r i t i c a l - A r e a I n v e st i g a t i o n s
In those areas where unfavorable or critical geologic conditions are expected to have an adverse
effect on the project design and construction, the explorations should be extended to a depth where
those conditions may be fully evaluated. All problematic strata and areas of concern should be fully
penetrated by the borings. It is advisable to extend the borings beyond the depths that are strictly
necessary rather than terminate them before the desired information is obtained. Borings should
never be terminated in soft, organic, or any other deleterious materials that will adversely affect the
project design, construction, or performance. Extra drilling in some borings is less expensive than
drilling additional borings or even remobilizing equipment to the site to obtain sufficient data for
design.
3.5.3.7 Landslides
Considerable flexibility must be built into the Exploration Plan for any landslide, and particularly with
respect to the depth of the explorations. Follow these guidelines:
Typically, the cross-section drawn along the centerline of the landslide is used to develop the
preliminary exploration depths.
Circular, elliptical, or composite curves drawn from the headscarp to the toe bulge are
projected onto the cross-section to show the possible depths of slide movement. These
curves are commonly exaggerated to conservatively estimate the slide depth.
The preliminary boring depths should extend 20 feet (6m) or more below the projected slide
plane to assure that the zone of movement is fully penetrated, and to secure instruments
below the slide plane for the best results.
Firm, resistant strata, bedrock projections and irregular surfaces will also affect the geometry
of the slide plane, and subsequently, the final depths of individual borings.
Landslide borings should always be extended to a depth that clearly identifies which
materials are involved in the current slope movement, which underlying materials are
presently stable, and the location of the slide surface(s). This is not only important to the
development of a stability analysis, but will become important once again during construction
when the precise locations of mitigation efforts will be determined. There is often a possibility
that the observed landslide activity is an accelerated portion of a slower, deeper-moving
landslide that may only be detected by instrumentation. For this reason, at least one boring
should be extended far below the predicted slide surface to divulge such activity. Any
Exploration Plan for landslide investigations should contain the flexibility to extend borings to
considerable depth during the site exploration.
3 . 5 . 5 . 2 T h i n - Wa l l e d U n d i s t u r b ed Tu b e S a m p l i n g
Undisturbed samples of cohesive soils should be taken with 3-inch (7.6cm) diameter Shelby Tubes
according to the standard practice for thin-walled tube sampling of soils in
ASTM D 1587-00. This method obtains relatively undisturbed samples by pressing the thin-walled
tube into the subject strata at the bottom of the boring. Thin-walled sampling is simply a method for
retrieving a sample for laboratory testing. There is no actual field testing involved with thin-walled
sampling unless a Torvane or Pocket Penetrometer test is performed on the end of the sample.
Pressures exerted by the drill rig while pushing Shelby tubes are frequently recorded for general
reference but do not provide repeatable test results. After the unfavorable effects of the sampling
procedure, transport, handling, and storage, a truly undisturbed sample cannot be realistically tested
in the laboratory. However, with appropriate care, valid samples can be taken for shear strength,
density, consolidation, and permeability testing.
Shelby tubes do not utilize a sample retention system to hold the sample in place during retrieval
from the borehole, so sample recovery can be unreliable. Thin-walled sampling in general is
successful only in soft to stiff cohesive soils. Soils that are very soft are difficult to recover with
standard Shelby tube while the upper range of stiff and very stiff soils are difficult to penetrate or bend
the tube resulting in a disturbed sample. Oversized clasts and organic fragments in the softer soil
matrix can also be detrimental to thin-walled sampling.
Various samplers that use retractable pistons to create a vacuum in the top of the tube can achieve
greater success in obtaining undisturbed samples of soft cohesive soils as well as granular materials.
3 . 6 . 2 . 1 M e t h o d s G e n e r a l l y No t U se d
Cable-tool, wash, jet, and air-rotary methods are generally not used on ODOT projects for many
reasons. Cable-tool drilling may be useful for some environmental applications and well
installations, but is generally antiquated and not productive for geotechnical investigation. Wash
and jet borings cause down-hole disturbance well past the bottom of the boring, and the fluids
are difficult to recover making them more of a liability than a source of data. Air-rotary drilling
usually causes too much down-hole disturbance to provide reliable SPT data, and difficult to
advance in soft soils. Groundwater typically stops further advancement of air-rotary drills, forms
large voids, and casts sediment-laden water about the site. Air-rotary drilling may be suited to
specific applications where known materials at a site are delineated based on the drill advance
rate and obvious changes in the drill cuttings as they are flushed from the hole. In these
applications, the air-rotary borings should be supplemental to standard geotechnical exploration
borings conducted at the site.
3 . 6 . 2 . 5 Vi b r a t o r y o r S o n i c D r i l l i n g
Sonic drilling may be called vibratory or rotosonic drilling. This type of drilling is used for continuous
sampling in unconsolidated sediments and soft, weathered bedrock. It is best suited for use in
oversized unconsolidated deposits enriched with cobbles and boulders such as talus slopes,
colluvium, and debris flows or any other formation containing large clasts.
Benefits
The primary benefit of this method is recovery of oversized materials in a continuous sample,
rapid drilling rate, reduced volume of cuttings, and fast monitoring well installation.
This drilling technique is 8 to 10 times faster than hollow stem augering and produces about
10% of the volume of cuttings.
Drawbacks
The drawbacks to this method are that it is typically more expensive, and cannot penetrate
very far into bedrock.
The vibration of the drill stem during borehole advancement may disturb the subsurface
materials for an unknown distance ahead of the bit, and soft, loose materials can be liquefied
during sampling.
The sample size and speed of extraction will require additional personnel to process, log, and
classify in the field.
3 . 6 . 2 . 7 S u p p l e m e n t a l D r i l l i n g / E x p l o r a t i o n Ap p l i ca t i o n s
A wide assortment of exploration techniques are available to supplement the subsurface information
gathered from test borings at a project site. Typically, any method that can be employed to properly
evaluate the subsurface conditions in a supplementary capacity is acceptable on an ODOT project if
not constrained by environmental considerations. These methods are usually the most simple and
economic to quickly gather subsurface information with minimal cost. In some cases, more extensive
and costly methods are required to obtain critical design information. Generally, supplemental
investigations consist of simple hand auger borings or backhoe test pits to gather more detailed
information and collect additional samples in near-surface or overburden materials.
Hand Tools
Hand augers are available in many forms that allow rapid penetration of near-surface soils and
collection of representative samples. Various bits can be used that are suited to general soil
conditions that help penetrate and retain samples from certain materials. Extra sections of rods can
be added to extend the depth range of these tools. Small engine-powered augers can also be used
to increase the depth of penetration and to reduce the physical workload. Most hand augers are of
sufficient diameter to permit undisturbed Shelby-tube sampling in the boring where soft soils are
encountered. Additional tools such as jacks, cribbing, and extra weights may be needed to retract
the tube after sampling. Most field vehicles are equipped with shovels that geotechnical designers
can apply to subsurface investigations. Hand-excavated pits can provide essential, detailed
information on the near-surface environment.
Various hand probes and penetrometers can be used to make soundings of soft material depths and
delineate underground facilities in soft ground conditions. Hand auger borings and hand-excavated
test pits are often required for collection of bulk samples.
Cone Penetrometers
3 . 7 . 2 . 2 D e s i g n Ve r i f i c a t i o n
Instruments are frequently used to verify design assumptions and to check that facility performance is
as expected. Instrument data gathered early in a project can be used to modify the design in later
phases. Geotechnical instruments are also an inherent part of proof testing to verify design
adequacy.
3.7.2.5 Performance
Instruments are used for the short and long-term service performance of various facilities.
Deformation, slope movement, and piezometric surface measurements in landslides can be used to
evaluate the performance of drainage systems installed to stabilize the landslide. Loads on rock
bolts and tiebacks may be monitored to assess their long-term performance or evaluate the need for
additional supports.
3 . 7 . 3 . 1 A u t o m a t i c Da t a Ac q u i s i t i o n S y st e m s ( A D A S )
Automatic Data Acquisition Systems (ADAS) can provide significant advantages to a geotechnical
instrumentation program. They can provide numerous readings at set and reliable intervals, and they
can store and transmit data from remote or difficult access locations. ADAS are necessary for real-
time instrument monitoring and relay. They are beneficial at sites where many sensors are present
that would require copious staff time to read manually or for large-scale proof tests with many
concurrently-read instruments to be monitored throughout the test.
Automatic Data Acquisition Systems come in many forms ranging from the very simple, user-friendly
devices to systems requiring significant programming and electronics to install and run. Project
requirements usually dictate what system is selected, but the simplest, most inexpensive, and easiest
to connect to the chosen instruments are best. Follow these guidelines:
Simple dataloggers connected to individual instruments that are retrieved and downloaded
periodically are sufficient for most projects.
Large, complex problems may require a more intelligent system that can be programmed to
change monitoring routines in response to site or environmental changes.
Most instrumentation companies also have companion dataloggers to go with their products
while several independent companies also manufacture easy-to-use dataloggers. Other
companies, such as Campbell Scientific Incorporated, produce more complex systems that
can read multiple installations of different types of instruments as well as store and transmit
data.
In addition to the data collection devices, these firms also produce software for processing
and displaying the data. The software is another consideration if export to other systems is
desired. Compatibility between programs can create problems and errors in the end product
of an instrumentation project.
3 . 7 . 3 . 2 I n s t r u m e n t U s e a n d I n s t al l a t i o n
Instruments have been developed to monitor many specific geologic conditions and engineering
parameters. In many cases, a single instrument can be used or adapted for use on other
applications. For this, the manufacturer and other professionals should be consulted to assure that
the results obtained are valid, or, they may have insights and case histories that are of use for the
situation. The manufacturer’s literature, installation procedures, and other guidance documents
should be followed for proper installation of their products as procedures can vary for different
3.7.3.3 Inclinometers
Inclinometers are used on transportation projects mainly to detect and monitor lateral earth
movements in landslides and embankments. They are also used to monitor deflections in laterally
loaded piles and retaining walls. Horizontally installed inclinometers can also be used to monitor
settlement. Inclinometer systems are composed of:
grooved casing installed in a borehole, embedded in a fill or concrete, or attached to
structures,
probe and cable for taking measurements at set intervals in the casing, and
a digital readout unit and/or data storage device.
The installed casing is for single installation use, and the probe, cable and data storage unit are used
for almost all installations.
Note:
It is important to use the same probe for each reading in any particular installation since each probe
must be independently calibrated.
Inclinometers are manually read by a trained technician on a set schedule or in response to
environmental changes such as increased rainfall in the area or observation of surficial signs of slope
movement. In-place inclinometers spanning known or highly suspected zones of movement can be
installed for continuous, automatic monitoring. These usually remain in the hole permanently if
significant slope movement occurs.
Inclinometer casing installation is essential to successful performance of the instrument.
Shortcuts taken during installation will frequently result in poor performance of the instrument
or render it completely useless.
Inclinometers should be installed according to the procedures described in the SINCO
Applications guide with the exception of the grout valve.
Borings should be initially drilled or later reamed to a sufficient diameter that will
accommodate the inclinometer casing and an attached tremie tube.
The tremie tube should be attached to the inclinometer casing approximately 6 inches above
the bottom and along the casing at a close enough interval to prevent it from getting tangled
or constricted in the borehole.
One of the four grooves in the inclinometer casing should be aligned to the direction of slide
movement as the casing is assembled and lowered into the hole to prevent spiraling.
If the borehole walls are unstable, the drill casing may need to remain in the borehole, and
withdrawn as the grout level rises. Generally, the grout should be maintained at a visible level
in the casing as the drill string is withdrawn.
Initial readings should be taken as soon as the grout has sufficiently set up. This is usually 3 to 5
days after grouting. During installation, some grout is naturally lost to fractures and voids in the
3.7.3.4 Piezometers
Piezometers used to measure pore-water pressure and groundwater levels can range from simple
standpipes to complex electronic devices or pneumatic systems. Piezometers are typically installed
in selected layers to measure the piezometric pressures in that layer. The layout and target depths of
piezometer installation are determined by actual site conditions and project requirements.
Note:
All piezometers must be installed according to Oregon Water Resources Department regulations
defined by ORS 690.240 and ORS 537.747 through ORS 737.799 (appropriation of water
generally). Specifications for a properly operating instrument are usually more stringent than these
rules apart from the requirements for abandonment.
The various types of piezometers are generally used for different applications as described below.
Standpipe piezometers are general-purpose instrument for monitoring piezometric water
levels and are best-suited for granular materials. Standpipe piezometers require a water
level indicator to obtain readings.
Vibrating Wire piezometers utilize a pressure transducer to convert water pressure to a
frequency signal that is read by an electronic device. Vibrating Wire piezometers can be
automated by electronic systems.
Pneumatic piezometers are typically used to measure pore water pressure in saturated
conditions. Both Pneumatic and vibrating wire piezometers are used for all soil types and are
better suited to fine-grained soils than the standpipe variety due to the response time and
volume of water needed to record changes in water level in that type.
Piezometers should be placed at the desired sensing zone in a porous medium and sealed with the
appropriate materials above and below this zone to assure measurement of the piezometric pressure
in the desired location. Porous mediums or filter packs should be composed of pre-screened
commercial-grade silica sand. All piezometers should be installed and initialized according to their
manufacturer’s specifications.
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Inc., 1988, Manual on
Subsurface Investigations.
C.H. Dowding, Ed., Site Characterization & Exploration, ASCE Specialty Workshop Proceedings,
Northwestern University, 1978.
Dunnicliff, John 1988. Geotechnical Instrumentation For Monitoring Field Performance, John Wiley &
Sons, New York.
Turner, Keith A., and Schuster, Robert L., Eds., LANDSLIDES Investigation and Mitigation,
Transportation Research Board Special Report 247, 1996, Pages 140-163.
Geophysical Exploration for Engineering and Environmental Investigations, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Engineering and Design Manual, EM 1110-1-1802, August 1995.
Geotechnical Investigations, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineering and Design Manual,
EM 1110-1-1804, January 2001.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, 1994, Engineering Geology Field
Manual.
References are made to various ASTM standards. The ASTM International standards located at
www.astm.org (the “ASTM Site”).
Property Description:
D-89-16328
37-2W-28 TL 800
IT IS UNDERSTOOD AND AGREED: That this right and license shall be valid until all
exploration is completed unless revoked by grantor before completion. It is further
understood that the Oregon Department of Transportation shall, to the extent permitted by
Oregon law, be responsible for any unnecessary damage done, in connection with said
exploration, this will include any crops or other improvements on said property.
Grantor hereby represents and warrants that He/She is the owner of said property or
otherwise has the right to grant this permit of entry.
Signature:__________________________________
Project Name:
Highway and Mile Point:
Utility Locate Called By:
Locators Called (When):
Required Information
Caller ID #:
Type of Work:
County/City
Highway:
Mile Point:
Township/Range/
Quarter Section:
Distance from
Nearest Cross
Street:
Overhead Lines:
Special Markings:
Date to Be Located:
Ticket#:
Name of Person Called:
Utilities Notified:
4
4 Soil and Rock Classification and
Logging
4.1 General
The ODOT Soil and Rock Classification Manual (1987) should be used for the description and
classification of all soil and rock materials. This manual is available on the Geo-Environmental web
page at the following address:
Soil_Rock_Classification_Manual.pdf on ftp.odot.state.or.us
5
5 Engineering Properties of Soil and
Rock
5.1 General
The purpose of this chapter is to identify appropriate methods of soil and rock property assessment
and describe how to use soil and rock property data to establish engineering parameters for
geotechnical design. Soil and rock design parameters should be based on the results of a
geotechnical investigation which includes in-situ field testing and a laboratory testing program, used
separately or in combination. The geotechnical designer’s responsibility is to determine which
parameters are critical to the design of the project and then determine the parameters to an
acceptable level of accuracy. See Chapter 2 and the individual chapters that cover each
geotechnical design element area for further information on how to plan and obtain soil and rock
parameters.
The detailed measurement and interpretation of soil and rock properties should be consistent with the
guidelines provided in Sabatini, et al, April, 2002, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal
Highway Administration Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties, Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 5, FHWA-IF-02-034.
The focus of geotechnical design property assessment and final selection should be on the individual
geologic strata identified at the project site. A geologic stratum is characterized as having the same
geologic depositional history and stress history, and generally has similarities throughout the stratum
in terms of density, source material, stress history, and hydrogeology. It should be recognized that the
properties of a given geologic stratum at a project site are likely to vary significantly from point to point
within the stratum. In some cases, a measured property value may be closer in magnitude to the
measured property value in an adjacent geologic stratum than to the measured properties at another
point within the same stratum. However, soil and rock properties for design should not be averaged
across multiple strata. It should also be recognized that some properties (e.g., undrained shear
strength in normally consolidated clays) may vary as a predictable function of a stratum dimension
(e.g., depth below the top of the stratum). Where the property within the stratum varies in this
manner, the design parameters should be developed taking this variation into account, which may
5.6.1.1 D i s t u r b e d S h e a r S t r e n g t h Te st i n g
Disturbed soil shear strength testing is less commonly performed, and is primarily used as
supplementary information when performing back-analysis of existing slopes, or for fill material and
construction quality assurance when minimum shear strength is required. It is difficult to obtain
accurate shear strength values through shear strength testing of disturbed (remolded) specimens
since the in-situ density and soil structure is quite difficult to accurately recreate, especially
considering the specific in-situ density may not be known. The accuracy of this technique in this case
must be recognized when interpreting the results. However, for estimating the shear strength of
compacted backfill, more accurate results can be obtained, since the soil placement method, as well
as the in-situ density and moisture content, can be recreated in the laboratory with some degree of
confidence. The key in the latter case is the specimen size allowed by the testing device, as in many
cases, compacted fills have a significant percentage of gravel sized particles, requiring fairly large
test specimens (i.e., minimum 3 to 4 inch diameter, or narrowest dimension specimens of 3 to 4
inches).
5.6.1.2 O t h e r L a b o r a t o r y Te s t s
Tests to evaluate compressibility or permeability of existing subsurface deposits must be conducted
on undisturbed specimens, and sample disturbance must be kept to a minimum. See Sabatini, et al.
(2002) for additional requirements regarding these and other types of laboratory performance tests
that should be followed.
Experience should be used to select specific values within the ranges. In general, finer materials or
materials with significant silt-sized material will fall in the lower portion of the range. Coarser materials
with less then 5% fines will fall in the upper portion of the range.
5.8.5.2 S e l e c t G r a n u l a r B a c kf i l l
The standard specification for Select Granular Backfill, section 00330.14, ensures that the mixture
will be granular and contain at least a minimal amount of gravel size material. The materials are likely
to be poorly graded sand and contain enough fines to be moderately moisture sensitive. The
following applies:
Select Granular Backfill is not an all-weather material. Select Granular Backfill gradation
indicates that drained friction angles of 34 to 38 degrees are possible when the soil is well
compacted.
Relatively clean sands in a loose state will likely have drained friction angles of 30 to 35
degrees. Unit weights will be in the 120 to 130 pcf range for all the Select Granular Backfill
materials. However, these values are highly dependent on the geologic source of the
material. Windblown, beach, or alluvial sands that have been rounded through significant
transport could have significantly lower shear strength values.
Reject and scalped materials from processing could also have relative low friction angles
depending on the uniformity of the material and the degree of rounding in the soil particles.
In general, during design, the specific source of borrow is not known. Therefore, it is not prudent to
select a design friction angle that is near or above the upper end of the range unless the geotechnical
designer has specific knowledge of the source(s) likely to be used or unless quality assurance shear
strength testing is conducted during construction. Select Granular Backfill with significant fines
content may sometimes be modeled as having a temporary or apparent cohesion value from 50 to
200 psf. If a cohesion value is used, the friction angle should be reduced so as not to increase the
overall strength of the material. For long term analysis, all the Granular Materials should be modeled
with no cohesive strength.
5.8.5.4 S t o n e E m b a n k m en t M a t e r i a l
Stone Embankment Material, standard specification section 00330.16, is considered an all-weather
material. Compactive effort is based on a method specification. Because of the nature of the material,
compaction testing is generally not feasible. The specification allows for a broad range of material
and properties such that the internal friction angle and unit weight can vary considerably based on
the amount and type of rock in the fill. For compacted rock embankments constructed with Stone
Embankment Material:
Internal friction angles of up to 45 degrees may be reasonable.
Unit weights for rock embankments generally range from 130 to 140 pcf.
Durability is major issue with this material. Rock excavated from cuts consisting of siltstone,
sandstone and claystone may break down during the compaction process, resulting in less coarse
material. Also, if the rock is weak, failure may occur through the rock fragments rather than around
them. In these types of materials, the strength parameters may resemble those of embankments
constructed from Borrow Materials. For existing embankments, the soft rock may continue to weather
with time, if the embankment materials continue to become wet. Inadequate slope stability and
excessive settlement of embankments with non-durable materials are the long term effects of using
weak rock materials without proper placement and compaction.
5.8.5.5 Wo o d F i b e r
Wood fiber fills have been used by ODOT for fill heights up to about 20 feet. The wood fiber has
generally been used as lightweight fill material in emergency repair situations because wet weather
does not affect the placement and compaction of the embankment. Only fresh wood fiber should be
used to prolong the life of the fill, and the maximum particle size should be 6 inches or less. The
wood fiber is generally compacted in lifts of about 12 inches with two or more passes of a track dozer.
Presumptive design values of 50 pcf for unit weight and an internal angle of friction of about 40
degrees may be used for the design of the wood fiber fills (Allen et al., 1993).
To mitigate the effects of leachate, the amount of water entering the wood should be minimized.
Generally, topsoil caps of about 2 feet in thickness are used. The pavement section should be a
minimum of 2 feet (a thicker section may be needed depending on the depth of wood fiber fill). Wood
fiber fill will experience creep settlement for several years and some pavement distress should be
expected during that period. Additional information on the properties and durability of wood fiber fill is
provided in Kilian and Ferry (1993).
5.8.5.6 Geofoam
Geofoam has not been used as lightweight fill on ODOT projects, but there may be projects that will
incorporate it in the future. In contrast, WSDOT has had about 10 years of experience with Geofoam
in embankment construction. Geofoam ranges in unit weight from about 1 to 2 pcf. The Geofoam
material is made from expanded polystyrene (EPS) and is manufactured according to ASTM
standards for minimum density (ASTM C 303), compressive strength (ASTM D 1621) and water
absorption (ASTM C 272). Type I and II Geofoam are generally used in highway applications. Bales
of recycled industrial polystyrene waste are also available. These bales have been used to construct
6
6 Seismic Design
6.1 General
This chapter describes ODOT’s standards and policies regarding the geotechnical aspects of the
seismic design of ODOT projects. The purpose is to provide geotechnical engineers and engineering
geologists with specific seismic design guidance and recommendations not found in other standard
design documents used for ODOT projects. Complete design procedures (equations, charts, graphs,
etc.) are usually not provided unless necessary to supply, or supplement, specific design information,
or if they are different from standards described in other references. This chapter also describes
what seismic recommendations should typically be provided by the geotechnical engineer in the
Geotechnical Report.
This FHWA document provides design guidance for geotechnical earthquake engineering for
highways. Specifically, this document provides guidance on earthquake engineering
fundamentals, seismic hazard analysis, ground motion characterization, site characterization,
seismic site response analysis, seismic slope stability, liquefaction, and seismic design of
The above two documents are available on the ODOT Geo-Environmental web page. In light of the
continuous advances being made in evaluating the impact of liquefaction hazards and ground
failures on structures the above two references should be supplemented with the most up to date
technical information and guidelines.
NCHRP Report 472: The National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 472
(2002), “Comprehensive Specifications for the Seismic Design of Bridges”, is a report
containing the findings of a study completed to develop recommended specifications for
seismic design of highway bridges. The report covers topics including design earthquakes
and performance objectives, foundation design, liquefaction hazard assessment and design,
and seismic hazard representation.
The USGS National Seismic Hazard Maps website is a valuable tool for characterizing the
seismic hazard for a specific site. This site provides the results of Probabilistic Seismic
Hazard Analyses (PSHA) in the form of the Uniform Seismic Hazard, which reflects the
contribution of all seismic sources in the region on the ground motion parameters. The
website provides ground motion parameters (Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), and
acceleration response spectral ordinates between 0.1 and 5.0 seconds) on Site Class B rock
for various return periods, specified as a percentage probability of exceedance in a given
exposure interval, in years. The website provides PGA and spectral acceleration ordinates at
periods of 0.2 and 1.0 second for risk levels of 5 and 10 percent probabilities of exceedance
(PE) in 50 years for use in the development of response spectra, in accordance with
AASHTO. This risk level of 5 and 10 percent PE corresponds to approximately 7 and 14
percent PE in 75 years, respectively. The website also provides interactive deaggregation of
a site’s probabilistic seismic hazard. The deaggregation is useful for demonstrating the
relative contribution of regional seismic sources, in terms of magnitude and source-to-site
distance, on the seismic hazard at a site. De-aggregation is particularly useful for
demonstrating how the ground motion parameters generated by individual sources compare
to the mean motions determined for the Uniform Seismic Hazard.
WSDOT Geotechnical Design Manual, M46-03.01, November, 2008
o http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M46-
03/Geotech.pdf
There are four retaining wall categories, as defined in Section 15.2.1. The seismic design
performance objectives for these four categories are listed below:
Bridge Abutments: Bridge Abutments are considered to be part of the bridge, and
shall meet the seismic design performance objectives for the bridge see
Section 6.2.1.
In addition, design all Bridge Retaining Walls for 500-year return period ground
motions under the “Serviceability” bridge criteria. Under this level of shaking, Bridge
Retaining Wall movement must not result in unacceptable performance of the bridge
or bridge approach fill, as described under the 500-Year “Serviceability” criteria in
Section 6.2.1.
Highway Retaining Walls: Design all Highway Retaining Walls for 1000-year return
period ground motions. Under this level of shaking, the Highway Retaining Wall must
be able to withstand seismic forces and displacements without failure of any part of
the Highway Retaining Wall. Highway Retaining Walls shall be designed for overall
stability under these seismic loading conditions, including anticipated displacements
associated with liquefaction. Mitigation to achieve overall stability may be required
The policy to design all Highway Retaining Walls to meet overall stability requirements for seismic
design may not be practical at all wall locations. Where it is not practical to design a Highway
Retaining Wall for overall stability under seismic loading, and where a failure of this type would not
endanger the public, impede emergency and response vehicles along essential lifelines, or have an
adverse impact on another structure, the local Region Tech Center will evaluate practicable
alternatives for improving the seismic resistance and performance of the retaining wall.
In general, retaining walls and bridge abutments should not be built on or near landslides or other
areas that are marginally stable under static conditions. However, if site conditions and project
constraints provide no cost effective or technical alternative, the local Region Tech Center will
evaluate, on a case-by-case basis, the possible placement of these structures in these locations, as
well as requirements for global (overall) instability of the landslide during the design seismic event.
The designer should review the basis of these hazard maps and have a thorough understanding of
the data they represent and the methods used for their development. The 2008 USGS National
Seismic Hazard maps are currently under review by the ODOT Bridge Section and are not approved
for use on ODOT projects at this time.
The BDDM maps provide Peak Ground Acceleration (PGA), 0.20 sec. and 1.0 sec. spectral
accelerations scaled in contour intervals of 0.01g. Ground motion values can be obtained from the
USGS website by selecting the “Custom Mapping and Analysis Tools” link and then the
“Interactive Deaggregation, 2002” link. The PGA and spectral accelerations can then be obtained
by entering the latitude and longitude of the site and the desired probability of exceedance (i.e., 5% in
50 years for the 1000 year return event). It should be noted that the PGA obtained from these maps
is actually the Peak “Bedrock” Acceleration (i.e., Site Class B), and does not include, or take into
account, any local soil amplification effects. See Section 6.5.1 for the development of design ground
motion data.
The site is located within 6 miles of a known active fault capable of producing at least a
magnitude 5 earthquake. For these cases, near-fault ground motion effects (directivity,
directionality) were not explicitly modeled in the development of national ground motion
maps, and the code/specification based hazard level may be significantly unconservative.
These “near-fault” effects are normally only considered for essential or critical structures.
The size or importance of the bridge is such that a lower probability of exceedance (and
therefore a longer return period) should be considered.
It should be noted that the site-specific PSHA is often uncoupled from subsequent site-specific
ground response analyses, which are described in Section 6.5.1.3. A site specific probabilistic
hazard analysis focuses on the spatial and temporal occurrence of earthquakes, and evaluates all of
the possible earthquake sources contributing to the seismic hazard at a site with the purpose of
A deaggregation of the total seismic hazard should be performed to find the principal individual
sources contributing to the seismic hazard at the site. As a general rule of thumb, all sources that
contribute more than about 5% to the hazard should be evaluated. However, sources that contribute
less than 5% may also be sources to consider since they may still significantly affect the liquefaction
analysis or influence portions of the site’s response spectra. The relative contribution of all
considered sources, in terms of magnitude and distance, on PGA and on spectral accelerations at 9
different frequencies (or periods) of structural vibration can be readily evaluated using the results of
the USGS seismic hazard mapping tools and deaggregation capabilities available on-line.
It is important to note that the ground motion values (PGA, S 0.2, S1.0) obtained for the primary M-R
pairs obtained in this fashion will not likely be the same as the “mean” values developed for the
Uniform Seismic Hazard (USH), which are used as the basis for structural analysis. Also, it is likely
that the average value of a specific ground motion parameter obtained for the principal M-R pairs will
also vary from the mean value provided by the USGS USH. The difference will reflect the number M-
R pairs considered and the relative contributions of the sources to the overall hazard.
This deaggregation process will likely yield more than one M-R pair, and therefore more than one
magnitude and peak ground acceleration, for liquefaction analysis in some areas of the state where
the hazard is dominated by two or more seismic sources. In most of western Oregon, this will include
both shallow crustal sources and the Cascadia Subduction Zone. In this case, each M-R (i.e., M-
PGA) pair should be evaluated individually in a liquefaction analysis. If liquefaction is estimated for
any given M-PGA pair, the evaluation of that pair is continued through the slope stability and lateral
deformation evaluation processes. In some areas in the state where the seismic hazard is dominated
by a single source, such as the Cascadia Subduction Zone along the coast, a single pair of M-R
values (largest magnitude (M) and closest distance (R)) may be appropriate for defining and
assessing the worst case liquefaction condition.
The steps involved in a simplified deaggregation application and liquefaction analysis are described
in Dickenson, 2005. Four example problems are provided in Dickenson, 2005 for different areas of
the state, demonstrating the deaggregation procedure. A recommended procedure for estimating
lateral embankment deformations is also included in this paper along with two example problems. A
flow chart of this process, extracted from this paper, is attached as Appendix 6-A.
Determine methods to obtain the required design parameters and assess the validity of such
methods for the soil and rock material types.
Develop an integrated investigation of in-situ testing, soil sampling, and laboratory testing. This
includes determining the number of tests/samples needed and appropriate locations to obtain them.
Soil Samples for Gradation Testing: Used for determining the amount (percentage) of fines
in the soil for liquefaction analysis. Also useful for scour estimates.
Undisturbed Samples: Laboratory testing for Su, e50, E, G, and other parameters for both
foundation modeling and seismic design.
Shear Wave Velocity Measurements: For use in determining soil Site Class. Also used to
develop a shear wave velocity profile of the soil column and to obtain low strain shear
modulus values to use in analyses such as dynamic soil response.
Piezocone Penetrometer Test: Used for liquefaction analysis and is even preferred in some
locations due to potential difficulties in obtaining good quality SPT results. Pore pressure
measurements and other parameters can be obtained for use in foundation design and
modeling. Also useful in establishing the pre-construction subsurface soil conditions prior to
conducting ground improvement techniques and the post-construction condition after ground
improvement.
Table Seismic Design-13 provides a summary of site characterization needs and testing
considerations for geotechnical/seismic design.
.
For routine designs, in-situ or laboratory testing for parameters such as the dynamic shear modulus
at small strains, equivalent viscous damping, shear modulus and damping ratio versus shear strain,
and residual shear strength are generally not directly obtained. Instead, index properties and
correlations based on in-situ field measurements (such as the SPT and CPT) are generally used in
lieu of in-situ or laboratory measurements for routine design to estimate these values.
If correlations are used to obtain seismic soil design properties, the following correlations are
recommended. Other acceptable correlations can be found in Dickenson et al. (2002), Kramer
(1996), and other technical references. Region and site-specific correlations developed by
practitioners are acceptable with adequate supporting documentation and approval by ODOT.
ODOT Table Seismic Design-14, which presents correlations for estimating initial shear
modulus (Gmax) based on relative density, penetration resistance or void ratio.
ODOT Figure Seismic Design-2, which presents shear modulus reduction curves and
equivalent viscous damping ratio for cohesionless soils (sands) as a function of shear strain
and depth.
ODOT Figure Seismic Design-3 and Figure Seismic Design-4, which present shear
modulus reduction curves and equivalent viscous damping ratio, respectively, as a function of
cyclic shear strain and plasticity index for fine grained (cohesive) soils.
Table Seismic Design-14. Correlations for estimating initial shear modulus (Kavazajjian, et
al., 1997).
Reference Correlation Units (1) Limitations
Seed et al. (1984) Gmax = 220 (K2)max (σ’m)½ kPa (K2)max is about 30 for very
loose sands and 75 for very
dense sands; about 80 to
180 for dense well graded
(K2)max = 20(N1)60⅓ gravels; Limited to
cohesionless soils
Imai and Tonouchi Gmax = 15,560 N600.68 kPa Limited to cohesionless soils
(1982)
Mayne and Rix Gmax = 99.5(Pa)0.305(qc)0.695/(e0)1.13 kPa(2) Limited to cohesive soils; Pa
(1993) = atmospheric pressure
Figure Seismic Design-4. Equivalent viscous damping ratio vs. cyclic shear strain for fine
grained soils (redrafted from Vucetic and Dobry, 1991).
Figure Seismic Design-6. Estimation of residual strength ratio from SPT resistance
(Olson and Stark, 2002).
site characterization,
Determine the Site Class and Site Coefficients based on the properties of the soil profile,
Develop the Design Response Spectrum for the site or conduct ground response analysis if
necessary,
If liquefaction is predicted:
3. Provide soil properties for both the liquefied and non-liquefied soil conditions for use
in the lateral load analysis of deep foundations.
Evaluate impacts of seismic geologic hazards including liquefaction, lateral spreading and
slope instability on infrastructure, including estimated loads and deformations acting on the
structure.
Develop foundation spring values for dynamic loading (liquefied and non-liquefied soil
conditions). Also recommendations regarding lateral springs for use in modeling abutment
backfill soil resistance.
Determine earthquake induced earth pressures (active and passive) and provide stiffness
values for equivalent soil springs (if required) for retaining structures and below grade walls.
Note that separate analysis and recommendations will be required for the 500 and 1000 year seismic
design ground motions. A general design procedure is described in the following flow chart (Figure
Seismic Design-8) along with the information that should be supplied in the final geotechnical report.
1. AASHTO General Procedure: Use specification/code based hazard (2002 USGS Maps)
with specification/code based site coefficients.
2. Ground Response Analysis: Use specification/code based hazard (2002 USGS Maps) with
site specific ground response analysis.
Both methods take local site effects into account. For most routine structures at sites with
competent soils (i.e., no liquefiable, sensitive, or weak soils), the first method (General
Procedure), described in Article 3.4 of the AASHTO Guide Specification for LRFD Seismic
Bridge Design, is sufficient to account for site effects. However, the importance of the structure,
the ground motion levels and the soil and geological conditions of a site may dictate the need
for a Ground Response Analysis (second method). The geotechnical engineer is responsible for
developing and providing the design response spectra for the project.
6.5.1.2 A A S H TO G e n e r a l P r o c e d u r e
The standard method of developing the acceleration response spectrum is described in AASHTO,
2009. First, the peak ground acceleration (PGA), the short-period spectral acceleration (S s) and the
long-period spectral acceleration (S1) are obtained from the 2002 USGS Seismic Hazard Maps for
the location of the bridge. PGA, Ss, and S1 are obtained for both the 500-year and 1000-year return
periods. Then the soil profile is classified as one of six different site classes (A through F). This Site
Class designation is then used to determine the “Site Coefficients”, Fpga, Fa and Fv, except for sites
classified as Site Class F, which required a site-specific ground response analysis Section 6.5.3.
These site coefficients are then multiplied by the peak ground acceleration (Fpga x PGA), the short-
period spectral acceleration (Fa x Ss) and the long period spectral acceleration (Fv x S1) respectively
and used to develop the site response spectrum. A program to develop the response spectra using
the general procedure has been developed by the Bridge Section and can be accesses through the
ODOT Bridge Section web page.
Once the response spectrum is developed the structural engineer can determine the Response
Spectral Acceleration (per AASHTO 2009 Guide Specifications) for use in the seismic design of the
structure.
Spread Footings
Shear modulus; ‘G’ is dependent on the
shear strain; generally a ‘G’ corresponding Piles
to a shear strain in the range of 0.20% to p-y curve data for non-
0.02% is appropriate. For large magnitude liquefied and liquefied soils Shafts
events (M>7.5) and very high PGA p-y multipliers p-y curve data for non-liquefied
(>0.6g), a ‘G’ corresponding to a shear Designation as “end bearing” and liquefied soils
strain of 1% is recommended. A ground or “friction” piles for modeling p-y multipliers
response analysis may also be conducted axial stiffness
to determine the appropriate shear strain
value to use.
Poisons ratio,
Kp, Su, ,
Liquefied Configuration: The structure is reanalyzed and designed under liquefied soil
conditions assuming the appropriate residual resistance for lateral and axial deep
foundation response analyses consistent with liquefied soil conditions (i.e., modified P-Y
curves, modulus of subgrade reaction, T-Z curves, axial soil frictional resistance). The
design spectrum should be the same as that used in nonliquefied configuration.
A site-specific response spectrum may be developed for the “Liquefied Configuration” based on
a ground response analysis that utilizes non-linear, effective stress methods, which properly
account for pore pressure buildup and stiffness degradation of the liquefiable soil layers see
Section 6.5.1.4. The decision to complete a ground response analysis where liquefaction is
anticipated should be made by the geotechnical designer based on the site geology and
characteristics of the bridge being designed. The design response spectrum resulting from the
ground response analyses shall not be less than two-thirds of the spectrum developed using the
general procedure for the non-liquefied soil condition.
Liquefiable Soil Conditions. For liquefiable soil sites, it may be desirable to develop
response spectra that take into account increases in pore water pressure and soil
softening. This analysis results in a response spectra that is generally lower than the
nonliquefied response spectra except for spectral accelerations in the higher period
range (above 1.0 second). A nonlinear effective stress analysis may also be necessary
to refine the standard liquefaction analysis based on Seed’s Simplified (SPT) Method (or
others) with information from a GRA. This is especially true if liquefaction mitigation
designs are proposed. The cost of liquefaction mitigation is sometimes very large and a
more detailed analysis to verify the potential, and extent, of liquefaction is usually
warranted.
very deep soil deposits or thin (<40 – 50 feet) soil layers over bedrock.
to obtain better information for evaluating lateral deformations, near surface soil shear
strain levels or deep foundation performance.
to obtain ground surface PGA values for abutment wall or other design.
Procedures for conducting a site specific ground response analysis are described in Article 3.4.3. of
the AASHTO guide specifications and in Chapter 4 of Kavazanjian, et al. (1997).
A ground response analysis evaluates the response of a layered soil deposit subjected to earthquake
motions. One-dimensional, equivalent-linear models are commonly utilized in practice. This model
uses an iterative total stress approach to estimate the nonlinear elastic behavior of soils. Modified
versions of the numerical model SHAKE (e.g., ProSHAKE, SHAKE91, SHAKE2000) are routinely
used to simulate the propagation of seismic waves through the soil column and generate output
consisting of ground motion time histories at selected locations in the soil profile, plots of ground
motion parameters with depth (e.g., PGA, cyclic shear stress, cyclic shear strain), and acceleration
response spectra at depths of interest. The program calculates the induced cyclic shear stresses in
individual soil layers which may be used in liquefaction analysis.
The equivalent linear model provides reasonable results for small to moderate cyclic shear strains
(less than about 1 to 2 percent) and modest accelerations (less than about 0.3 to 0.4g) (Kramer and
Paulsen, 2004). Equivalent linear analysis cannot be used where large strain incompatibilities are
present, to estimate permanent displacements, or to model development of pore water pressures in a
coupled manner. Computer programs capable of modeling non-linear, effective stress soil behavior
are recommended for sites where high ground motion levels are indicated and it is anticipated that
moderate to large shear strains will be mobilized. These are typically sites with soft to medium stiff
fine-grained soils or saturated deposits of loose to medium dense cohesionless soils.
Basically, the input parameters required for site specific seismic response analysis include soil
layering (thickness), standard geotechnical index properties for the soils, dynamic soil properties for
each soil layer, the depth to bedrock or firm soil interface, and a set of ground motion time histories
representative of the primary seismic hazards in the region.
6.5.1.5 S e l e c t i o n o f Ti m e H i s t o r i e s f o r G r o u n d
R e s p o n s e An a l y s i s
AASHTO (2009) allows two options for the selection of time histories to use in ground response
analysis. The two options are:
a) Use a suite of 3 response-spectrum-compatible time histories with the design response
spectrum developed enveloping the maximum response, or
b) Use of at least 7 time histories and develop the design spectrum as the mean of the
computed response spectra.
For both options, the time histories shall be developed from the representative recorded earthquake
motions, or in special instances synthetic ground motions may be used with approval of ODOT. The
time histories for these applications shall have characteristics that are representative of the seismic
environment of the site and the local site conditions, including the response spectrum for the site.
Analytical techniques used for spectral matching shall be demonstrated to be capable of achieving
seismologically realistic time series. The time histories should be scaled to the approximate level of
the design response spectrum in the period range of significance (i.e., 0.5 < T < 2.0).
The procedures for selecting and scaling time histories for use in ground motion response analysis
can be summarized as follows:
1. Identify the target response spectra to be used to develop the time histories. The target
spectra are obtained from the 2002 USGS Seismic Hazard Maps for top-of-rock locations
(base of soil column). Two spectra are required, one for the 500-yr return event and one for
the 1000-yr event.
2. Identify the seismic sources that contribute to the seismic hazard for the site, considering the
desired probability of exceedance (i.e., 500 and 1000-yr return periods). Use the
deaggregation information for the 2002 USGS Seismic Hazard maps to obtain information on
the primary sources that affect the site. All seismic sources (M-R pairs) that contribute more
than 5% to the hazard in the period range of interest should be considered.
3. Select time histories to be considered for the analysis, considering tectonic environment and
style of faulting (subduction zone, Benioff zone, or shallow crustal faults), seismic source-to-
site-distance, earthquake magnitude, duration of strong shaking, peak acceleration, site
subsurface characteristics, predominant period, etc. In areas where the hazard has a
significant contribution from both the Cascadia Subduction Zone (CSZ) and from crustal
sources (e.g., Portland and much of the Western part of the state) both earthquake sources
need to be included in the analysis and development of a site specific response spectra. In
cases such as this, it is recommended that the ground response analysis be conducted using
a collection of time histories that include at least 3 motions representative of subduction zone
events and 3 motions appropriate for shallow crustal earthquakes with the design response
spectrum developed considering the mean spectrum of each of these primary sources.
6.5.1.7 B e d r o c k v e r s u s G ro u n d S u r f a ce A c c e l e r a t i o n
Soil amplification factors that account for the presence of soil over bedrock with regard to the
estimation of peak ground acceleration (PGA) are directly incorporated into the development of the
general procedure for developing response spectra for structural design of bridges and similar
structures in the AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design and Guide Specifications and for the structural
design of buildings and non-transportation related structures in the 2003 IBC. Additional amplification
factors should not be applied to peak bedrock accelerations when code based response spectra are
used. However, amplification factors should be applied to the peak bedrock acceleration to determine
the peak ground acceleration (PGA) for liquefaction assessment, such as for use with the Simplified
Method Section 6.5.5.2, and for the estimation of seismic earth pressures and inertial forces for
retaining wall and slope design. For liquefaction assessment and retaining wall and slope design, the
Site Factors (Fpga) presented in AASHTO 3.10.3.2 may be applied to the bedrock PGA used to
determine the ground surface acceleration, unless a site specific evaluation of ground response is
conducted.
Due to the high cost of liquefaction mitigation measures, it is important to identify liquefiable soils and
the potential need for mitigation measures early on in the design process (during the DAP (TS&L)
phase) so that appropriate and adequate funding decisions are made. The following sections provide
ODOT’s policies regarding liquefaction and a general overview of liquefaction hazard assessment
and its mitigation. .
Adjacent Stream, Lake or Standing Water Influence: Use the estimated, annual,
average elevation for the wettest (6 month) seasonal period.
6.5.2.2 M e t h o d s t o E v a l u at e L i q u e f a ct i o n P o t e n t i a l
Evaluation of liquefaction potential should be based on soil characterization using in-situ testing
methods such as Standard Penetration Tests (SPT) and Cone Penetration Tests (CPT). Liquefaction
potential may also be evaluated using shear wave velocity (Vs) testing and Becker Penetration Tests
(BPT); however, these methods are not preferred and are used less frequently than SPT or CPT
methods. Vs and BPT testing may be appropriate in soils difficult to test using SPT and CPT
methods such as gravelly soils though, in the absence of fine grained soil layers that may act as
poorly drained boundaries, these soils often have a low susceptibility to liquefaction potential due to
high permeability and rapid drainage. If the CPT method is used, SPT sampling and soil gradation
testing shall still be conducted to obtain direct information on soil type and gradation parameters for
use in liquefaction susceptibility assessment.
Preliminary Screening: A detailed evaluation of liquefaction potential is not required if any of the
following conditions are met:
The bedrock PGA (or Acceleration Coefficient, As) is less than 0.10g,
The ground water table is more than 75 feet below the ground surface,
The soils in the upper 75 feet of the profile have a minimum SPT resistance, corrected for
overburden depth and hammer energy (N160), of 25 blows/ft, or a cone tip resistance qciN of
150 tsf.
All soils in the upper 75 feet are classified as “cohesive”, and have a PI ≥ 18. Note that
cohesive soils with PI ≥ 18 may still be very soft or exhibit sensitive behavior and could
therefore undergo significant strength loss under earthquake shaking. This criterion should be
used with care and good engineering judgment. Recent advances in the screening and
evaluation of fine-grained soils for strength loss during cyclic loading can be found in Bray
and Sancio, (2006) and Boulanger and Idriss, (2006, 2007).
Simplified Procedures: Simplified Procedures should always be used to evaluate the liquefaction
potential even if more rigorous methods are used to supplement or refine the analysis. The Simplified
Procedure was originally developed by Seed and Idriss (1971) and has been periodically modified
and improved since. It is routinely used to evaluate liquefaction resistance in geotechnical practice.
The procedures described in Section 3.4 of the report “Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction
Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon”, (Dickenson et al, 2003) should be followed
for assessing the liquefaction potential of soil by the Simplified Procedures.
The paper titled “Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER/NSF
Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils” (Youd et al., (2001) also provides a
state of the practice summary of the Simplified Procedures for assessment of liquefaction
Equation 6.1
T
Where: av = average or uniform earthquake induced cyclic shear
stress
amax = peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface accounting
for site amplification effects (ft/sec2)
g = acceleration due to gravity (ft/sec2)
σo = initial total vertical stress at depth being evaluated (lb/ft2)
σo’ = initial effective vertical stress at depth being evaluated (lb/ft2)
rd = stress reduction coefficient
Correction factors for borehole diameter, rod length and sampler liners should be used,
where appropriate.
Blowcounts obtained using non-standard samplers such as the Dames and Moore or
modified California samplers shall not be used for liquefaction evaluations.
Limitations of the Simplified Procedures: The limitations of the Simplified Procedures should be
recognized. The Simplified Procedures were developed from empirical evaluations of field
observations. Most of the case history data was collected from level to gently sloping terrain
underlain by Holocene-age alluvial or fluvial sediment at depths less than 50 feet. Therefore, the
Simplified Procedures are applicable to only these site conditions. Caution should be used for
evaluating liquefaction potential at depths greater than 50 feet using the Simplified Procedure. In
addition, the Simplified Procedures estimate the trend of earthquake induced cyclic shear stress ratio
with depth based on a coefficient, rd, which becomes highly variable at depths below about 40 feet.
As an alternative to the use of Equation 6.1, one dimensional ground response analyses should be
used to better determine the maximum earthquake induced shear stresses at depths greater than
about 50 feet. Equivalent linear, total stress computer programs (Shake2000, ProShake or other
equivalent program) may be used for this purpose.
Nonlinear Effective Stress Methods: An alternative to the simplified procedures for evaluating
liquefaction susceptibility is to perform a nonlinear, effective stress site response analysis utilizing a
computer code capable of modeling pore water pressure generation and dissipation (D-MOD2000,
DESRA, FLAC). These are more rigorous analyses and they require additional soil parameters,
validation by the practitioner, and additional specialization.
The advantages of this method of analysis include the ability to assess liquefaction at depths greater
than 50 feet, the effects of liquefaction and large shear strains on the ground motion, and the effects
of higher accelerations that can be more reliably evaluated. In addition, seismically induced
deformation can be estimated, and the timing of liquefaction and its effects on ground motion at and
below the ground surface can be assessed.
Several non-linear, effective stress analysis programs can be used to estimate liquefaction
susceptibility at depth. However, few of these programs are being used by geotechnical designers at
this time. In addition, there has been little verification of the ability of these programs to predict
liquefaction at depths greater than 50 feet because there are few well documented sites of deep
liquefaction.
Due to the highly specialized nature of these more sophisticated liquefaction assessment
approaches, an independent peer review by an expert in this type of analysis is required to use
nonlinear effective stress methods for liquefaction evaluation.
Magnitude and PGA for Liquefaction Analysis: The procedures described in Section 6.3.2, and
in Dickenson et al. (2002), should be used to determine the appropriate earthquake magnitude and
peak ground surface acceleration to use in the simplified procedure for liquefaction analysis. If a site
specific ground response analysis is used to determine the peak ground surface acceleration(s) for
use in liquefaction analyses, this value should be representative of the cyclic loading induced by the
M-R pair(s) of interest. It is anticipated that PGA values obtained from site-specific ground response
analysis will differ from the PGA determined by the AASHTO General Procedure for the Uniform
Seismic Hazard. The PGA and magnitude values used in the liquefaction hazard analysis shall be
tabulated for all considered seismic sources.
All of these methods estimate the residual strength of a liquefied soil deposit based on an
empirical relationship between residual undrained shear strength and equivalent clean sand
SPT blowcounts using the results of back-calculation of the apparent shear strengths from case
histories, including flow slides. All of these methods should be used to calculate the residual
undrained shear strength and an average value selected based on engineering judgment, taking
into consideration the basis and limitations of each correlation method.
Simplified charts based on nonlinear, effective stress modeling (Dickenson et al, 2002)
The Newmark sliding block methods should not be employed to estimate displacements
associated with liquefaction or cyclic strength loss if the static factor of safety with the reduced
(residual) strength parameters is less than 1.0.
Youd et al. (2002); Lateral Spreading: If the slope stability factor of safety from the flow failure
analysis Section 6.5.3.1, assuming liquefied conditions, is 1.0 or greater, a lateral
spreading/deformation analysis should be conducted. Lateral spreading results when the shear
strength of the liquefied soil is incrementally exceeded by the inertial forces induced during an
earthquake. The result of lateral spreading is typically horizontal movement of nonliquefied soils
located above liquefied soils, in addition to the liquefied soils themselves.
The potential for liquefaction induced lateral spreading on gently sloping sites or where the site
is located near a free face may be evaluated using empirical relationships such as the
procedure of Youd et al. (2002). This procedure uses empirical relationships based on case
histories of lateral spreading. Input into the Youd et al. model includes earthquake magnitude,
source-to-site distance, and site geometry/slope, cumulative thickness of saturated soil layers
and their characteristics (e.g. SPT “N” values, average fines content and average grain size).
This method is based on a regression analysis of several independent variables correlated to
Newmark Analysis: Newmark (1965) proposed a seismic slope stability analysis that provides
an estimate of seismically induced slope deformation. The advantage of the Newmark analysis
over pseudo-static analysis is that it provides an index of permanent deformation. The Newmark
analysis treats the unstable soil mass as a rigid block on an inclined plane. The procedure for
the Newmark analysis consists of three steps that can generally be described as follows:
Identify the yield acceleration of the slope by completing limit equilibrium stability analyses.
The yield acceleration is the horizontal pseudo-static coefficient, kh, required to bring the
factor of safety to unity (1.0). Note that if the yield acceleration applied to the entire
acceleration time history is based on residual soil strengths consistent with fully liquefied
conditions, the estimated lateral deformation will likely be overly conservative since the
liquefied, residual soil strength condition (and associated yield acceleration) will only be in
effect over a portion of the entire time history.
Select earthquake time histories representative of the design earthquakes. A minimum of
three time histories representative of the predominant earthquake source zone(s) should be
selected for this analysis. Note that these time histories need to be propagated through the
soil column to the ground surface to adjust them for local site effects.
Double integrate all relative accelerations (i.e., the difference between acceleration and yield
acceleration) in the earthquake time histories.
A number of commercially available computer programs are available to complete Newmark
analysis, such as Shake2000 or Java Programs for using Newmark’s Method and Simplified
Decoupled Analysis to Model Slope Performance during Earthquakes (Jibson, 2003).
Makdisi-Seed Analysis: Makdisi and Seed (1978) developed a simplified procedure for estimating
seismically induced slope deformations based on Newmark sliding block analysis. The Makdisi-Seed
procedure provides an estimated range of permanent seismically induced slope deformation as a
function of the ratio of yield acceleration over maximum acceleration and earthquake magnitude as
shown on Figure Seismic Design-12. The Makdisi-Seed procedure provides a useful index of the
magnitude of slope deformation. Because the Makdisi-Seed procedure includes the dynamic effects
of the seismic response of dams, its results should be interpreted with caution when applied to other
slopes.
Refined Newmark-Type Analysis – Saygili and Rathje (2008): This method is another
modification, or enhancement, of the original Newmark sliding block model, suitable for shallow
sliding surfaces that can be approximated by a rigid sliding block. The model predicts
displacements based on multiple ground motion parameters in an effort to reduce the standard
deviation of the predicted displacements.
Bracketed Intensity Method: The bracket intensity method is a modification of the Arias
Intensity procedure developed by Jibson (1993). The primary difference between the two
methods is that the bracketed intensity is a measure of only the ground motion intensity that is
actually contributing to the displacement of the sliding block. This method is quite similar to the
Newmark-type methods. A step-by-step procedure for calculating the estimated displacement is
presented in Dickenson et al. (2002).
Numerical Modeling Correlations (GMI): This is a simplified method for estimating lateral
deformations of embankments over liquefied soils. The method is presented Dickenson et al.
(2002)) and is based on two dimensional numerical modeling of typical approach embankments
using a finite difference computer code (FLAC). In the procedure developed, limit equilibrium
methods are used to first calculate the post-earthquake factor of safety, using residual shear
strengths in liquefied soils as appropriate. The resulting FOS is then used in combination with a
Ground Motion Intensity (GMI) parameter to estimate embankment displacements. The GMI
was developed to account for the intensity and duration of the ground motions used in the FLAC
analysis and is equal to the PGA divided by the MSF (magnitude scaling factor). This procedure
is also useful for estimating the amount, or area, of ground improvement needed to limit
displacements to acceptable levels.
Dynamic stress deformation models should not be used for routine design due to their
complexity, and due to the sensitivity of the accuracy of deformation estimates from these
models on the constitutive model selected and the accuracy of the input parameters.
6.5.5.2 G e n e r a l L i q u ef a c t i o n P o l i c i e s Re g a r d i n g B r i d g e
Foundations
If liquefaction is predicted under either the 500 or 1000 year return events, the effects of
liquefaction on foundation design and performance must be evaluated. Soil liquefaction and the
associated effects of liquefaction on foundation resistances and stiffness is generally assumed,
in standard analyses, to be concurrent with the peak loads in the structure (i.e. no reduction in
the transfer of seismic energy due to liquefaction and soil softening). This applies except for the
case where a site-specific nonlinear effective stress ground response analysis is performed
which takes into account pore water pressure increases (liquefaction) and soil softening.
Piles and Drilled Shafts: The tips of piles and drilled shafts shall be located below the
deepest liquefiable soil layer. Friction resistance from liquefied soils should not be included in
either compression or uplift resistance recommendations for the Extreme Event Limit I state
loading condition. As stated above, liquefaction of foundation soils, and the accompanying
lose of soil strength, is assumed to be concurrent with the peak loads in the structure. If
applicable, reduced frictional resistance should also be applied to partially liquefied soils
either above or below the predicted liquefied layer. Methods for this procedure are presented
in Seed and Idriss, (1971) and Dickenson et al. (2002).
Pile Design Alternatives: Obtaining adequate lateral pile resistance is generally the main concern at
pier locations where liquefaction is predicted. Battered piles are not recommended. Prestressed
concrete piles have not been recommended in the past due to problems with excessive bending
stresses at the pile-footing connection. Vertical steel piles are generally recommended in high
seismic areas to provide the most flexible, ductile and cost-effective pile foundation system. Steel
pipe piles often are preferred over H-piles due to their uniform section properties, versatility in driving
with either closed or open ended and their potential for filling with reinforced concrete. The following
design alternatives should be considered for increasing group resistance or stiffness and the most
economical design selected:
Increase pile size, wall thickness (section modulus) and/or strength.
Increase numbers of piles.
Increase pile spacing to reduce group efficiency effects.
Deepen pile cap and/or specify high quality backfill around pile cap for increase capacity and
stiffness.
Design pile cap embedment for fixed conditions.
Ground improvement techniques.
Liquefied P-y Curves: Studies have shown that liquefied soils retain a reduced, or residual,
shear strength and this shear strength may be used in evaluating the lateral capacity of
foundation soils. In light of the complexity of liquefied soils behavior ( including progressive
strength loss, strain mobilization, and possible dilation and associated increase in soil stiffness)
computer programs commonly used for modeling lateral pile performance under liquefied soil
conditions often rely on simplified relationships for soil-pile interaction. At this time, no
consensus exists within the professional community on the preferred approach to modeling
lateral pile response in liquefied soil. Peer review is recommended for projects involving deep
foundations in liquefiable soils.
One simplified procedure for modeling pile performance utilizes the static sand model(s) in the
LPILE program, modified using the residual shear strength and the effective overburden stress, at the
depth at which the residual strength was calculated (or measured), to estimate a reduced soil friction
angle (Φr) and initial soil modulus (k). The reduced soil friction angle is calculated using the inverse
tangent (i.e., Tan-1) of the residual undrained shear strength divided by the effective vertical stress at
6.5.5.3 L a t e r a l S p r e a d / S l o p e F a i l u r e L o ad s o n
Structures
In general, there are two different approaches to estimate the induced load on deep foundations
systems due lateral spreading — a displacement based method and a force based method.
Displacement based methods are more prevalent in the United States. The force based approach
has been specified in the Japanese codes and is based on case histories from past earthquakes,
especially the pile foundation failures observed during the 1995 Kobe earthquake. Overviews of both
approaches are presented in the following sections.
Similar approaches to those outlined above can be used to estimate loads that other types of
slope failure may have on the bridge foundation system.
6.5.5.5 F o r c e B a s e d A p p r o a ch e s
A force-based approach to assess lateral spreading induced loads on deep foundations is specified
in the Japanese codes. The method is based on back-calculations from pile foundation failures
caused by lateral spreading. The pressures on pile foundations are simply specified as follows:
The liquefied soil exerts a pressure equal to 30 percent of the total overburden pressure
(lateral earth pressure coefficient of 0.30 applied to the total vertical stress).
Non-liquefied crustal layers exert full passive pressure on the foundation system.
Data from simulated earthquake loading of model piles in liquefiable sands in centrifuge tests indicate
that the Japanese force method is an adequate design method (Finn, 2004).
Another force-based approach to estimate lateral spreading induced foundation loads is to use a limit
equilibrium slope stability program to determine the load the foundation must resist to achieve a
target safety factor of 1.1. This force is distributed over the foundation in the liquefiable zone as a
uniform stress. This approach may be utilized to estimate the forces that foundation elements must
withstand if they are to act as shear elements stabilizing the slope.
Note:
Note that it is customary to evaluate the lateral spread/slope failure induced loads
independently from the inertial forces caused by the shaking forces (i.e. the shaking force
loads and the lateral spread loads are typically not assumed to act concurrently). In most
cases this is reasonable since peak vibration response is likely to occur in advance of
maximum ground displacement, and displacement induced maximum shear and
moments will generally occur at deeper depths than those from inertial loading.
If the deformations determined in step 2 are beyond tolerable limits for structural design, the
options are to a) re-evaluate the deformations based on the “pinning” or “doweling” action that
foundations provide as they cross a potential failure plane (with consideration of the foundation
strength; or b) re-design the foundation system to accommodate the anticipated loads. Simplified
procedures for evaluating the available resistance to slope movements provided by the
foundation “pinning” action are presented in (NCHRP, 2002) and (Martin, et al., 2002) and require
knowledge of the plastic moment and location of plastic hinges in the foundation elements. This
information should be provided by the bridge designer or structural consultant. The concept of
considering a plastic mechanism or hinging in the piles/shafts is tantamount to accepting
foundation damage.
With input from the structural designer regarding “pinning” resistance provided by the foundation
system, recalculate the estimated displacement based on the revised resistance levels. If the
structure’s behavior is acceptable under the revised displacement estimate, the design for
liquefaction induced lateral spreading is complete. If the performance is not acceptable, then the
foundation system should be redesigned or ground improvement should be considered.
It is sometimes cost prohibitive to design the bridge foundation system to resist the loads
imposed by liquefaction induced lateral loads, especially if the depth of liquefaction extends more
than about 20 feet below the ground surface and if a non-liquefied crust is part of the failure
surface. Ground improvement to mitigate the liquefaction hazard is the likely alternative if it is not
practical to design the foundation system to accommodate the lateral loads.
Ground Improvement: The need for ground improvement techniques to mitigate liquefaction
effects depends, in part, upon the type and amount of anticipated damage to the structure and
approach fills due to the effects of liquefaction and embankment deformation (both horizontal and
vertical). The performance criteria described in Section 6.2 should be followed. Ground
Improvement methods are described in Elias et al. (2000) and Chapter 11. All ground
improvement designs required to mitigate the effects of soil liquefaction shall be reviewed by the
HQ Bridge Section.
If, under the 500-year event, the estimated bridge damage is sufficient to render the bridge out of
service for one lane of emergency traffic then ground improvement measures should be
undertaken. If, under the 1000-year event, estimated bridge damage results in the possible
collapse of a portion or all of the structure then ground improvement is recommended. A flow
chart of the ODOT Liquefaction Mitigation Procedures is provided in Appendix 6-C.
Original Ground
Limits of Mitigation
6.6.1.1 S h a l l o w F o u n d at i o n s
For evaluating shallow foundation springs, the structure designer requires values for the dynamic
shear modulus, G, Poisson’s ratio, and the unit weight of the foundation soils. The maximum, or low-
strain, shear modulus can be estimated using index properties and the correlations presented in
Table Seismic Design-14. Alternatively, the maximum shear modulus can be calculated using
Equation 6.2, if the shear wave velocity is known:
Gmax = /g(Vs)2
Where:
Gmax = maximum dynamic shear modulus
= soil unit weight
Vs = shear wave velocity
g = acceleration due to gravity
6.6.1.3 D o w n d r a g L o ad s o n S t r u c t u r e s
Downdrag loads on foundations shall be determined in accordance with Chapter 8.
Atwater, Brian F., 1996. Coastal Evidence for Great Earthquakes in Western Washington. Assessing
Earthquake Hazards and Reducing Risk in the Pacific Northwest, USGS Professional Paper 1560
Vol. 1: pp. 77-90.
Ashford, S. and Rollins, K., 2002. “TILT: The Treasure Island Liquefaction Test: Final Report”,
Department of Structural Engineering, Univ. of California, San Diego, Report No. SSRP-2001/17.
Bakun, W.H., Haugerud, R.A., Hopper, M.G., and Ludwin, R.S., 2002. “The December 1872
Washington State Earthquake”, Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, Vol. 92, No. 8, pp.
3239-3258.
Boulanger, R. W. and Idriss, I. M., 2006. “Liquefaction Susceptibility Criteria for Silts and Clays”,
ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 132, No. 11, pp. 1413-1426.
Bowles, J.E., 1996. Foundation Analysis and Design, Fifth Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Inc., New York.
Bray, J. and Rathje, E., 1998. “Earthquake Induced Displacements of Solid Waste Landfills”, ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 124, pp. 242-253.
Bray, J. D., and Sancio, R. B., 2006. “Assessment of the Liquefaction Susceptibility of Fine-Grained
Soil”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 132, No. 9, pp. 1165-
1176.
Bray, J. D., and Travasarou, T, 2007. “Simplified Procedure for Estimating Earthquake-Induced
Deviatoric Slope Displacements”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
ASCE, Vol. 133, No. 4, pp. 381-392.
Dickenson, S., McCullough, N., Barkau, M. and Wavra, B., 2002. “Assessment and Mitigation of
Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge Approach Embankments in Oregon”, ODOT Final Report SPR
361.
Dickenson, S., 2005. “Recommended Guidelines for Liquefaction Evaluations Using Ground
Motions from Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Analysis”, Report to ODOT.
Report 02-420, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, 2002,
“Documentation for the 2002 Update of the National Seismic Hazard Maps", Open-File.
Electrical Power Research Institute (EPRI), 1993. Guidelines for Site Specific Ground Motions. Palo
Alto, CA. Electrical Power Research Institute, November-TR-102293.
Elias, V., Welsh, J., Warren, J., and Lukas, R., 2000, Ground Improvement Technical Summaries –
Vol. 1 and 2, Demonstration Project 116, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-98-086.
Finn, W.D. Liam and Fujita, N., 2004. “Behavior of Piles in Liquefiable Soils during Earthquakes:
Analysis and Design Issues.” Proceedings: Fifth International Conference on Case Histories in
Geotechnical Engineering, New York, New York, April 13-17, 2004.
Goter, S.K., 1994. Earthquakes in Washington and Oregon; 1872-1993, 1994, USGS Open-File
Report No. 94-226A.
Idriss, I. M., 2003, Resolved and unresolved issues in soil liquefaction, Presentation at US-Taiwan
Workshop on Soil Liquefaction Hsinchu, Taiwan, November 2.
Induced Ground Failure Hazards, Transportation Research Board. National Research Council,
Washington, D.C.
International Code Council, Inc., 2002. 2003 International Building Code. Country Club Hills, IL.
Ishihara, K., and Yoshimine, M., 1992. “Evaluation of settlements in sand deposits following
liquefaction during earthquakes”, Soils and Foundations, JSSMFE, Vol. 32, No. 1, March, pp. 173-
188.
Jibson R.W., (1993). “Predicting Earthquake Induced Landslide Displacements Using Newmark’s
Sliding Block Analysis,” Transportation Research Record, No. 1411-Earthqauke Induced Ground
Failure Hazards. Transportation Research Board. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
Jibson R. and Jibson M., 2003. Java Program for using Newmark’s Method and Simplified
Decoupled Analysis to Model Slope Deformations During Earthquakes. Computer Software. USGS
Open File Report 03-005.
Kavazanjian, E., Matasovic, N., Hadj-Hamou, T. and Sabatini, P.J., 1997. Geotechnical Engineering
Circular #3, Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways, Volume I: Design
Principles and Volume II: Design Examples. Report Nos. FHWA-SA-97-076/077. U.S. Department of
Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Kramer, S.L., 1996. Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River,
NJ.
Kramer, S.L. and Paulsen, S.B., 2004. “Practical Use of Geotechnical Site Response Models.” PEER
Lifelines Program Workshop on the Uncertainties in Nonlinear Soil Properties and the Impact on
Modeling Dynamic Soil Response. Berkeley, CA. March 18-19, 2004.
Lee, M. and Finn, W., 1978. DESRA-2, Dynamic Effective Stress Response Analysis of Soil Deposits
with Energy Transmitting Boundary Including Assessment of Liquefaction Potential. Soil Mechanics
Series No. 38, Dept. of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
Makdisi, F.I. and Seed, H.B., 1978. “Simplified Procedure for Estimating Dam and Embankment
Earthquake-Induced Deformations.” ASCE Journal of the Geotechnical Engineering Division, Vol.
104, No. GT7, July, 1978, pp. 849-867.
Matasovic, N. and Vucetic, M. (1995b), “Seismic Response of Soil Deposits Composed of Fully-
Saturated Clay and Sand”, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Geotechnical
Earthquake Engineering, Tokyo, Japan, Vol. I, pp. 611-616.
McGuire, R.K., 2004. Seismic Hazard and Risk Analysis. Monograph MNO-10, Earthquake
Engineering Research Institute, Oakland, CA. 221 pp.
National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 2002. Comprehensive Specification for the
Seismic Design of Bridges, NCHRP Report 472, Washington DC. Newmark, N.M., 1965. “Effects of
Earthquakes on Dams and Embankments.” Geotechnique 15(2), pp. 139-160.
Sabatini, P.J., Bachus, R.C., Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A., and Zettler, T.E., 2002. Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 5, Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties, Report No. FHWA-IF-02-
034. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Satake, Kenji, et al., 1996. “Time and Size of a Giant Earthquake in Cascadia Inferred from
Japanese Tsunami Records of January 1700.” Nature, Vol. 379, pp. 247-248.
Saygili, G., and Rathje, E. M., 2008, “Empirical Predictive Models for Earthquake-Induced Sliding
Displacements of Slopes,” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol.
134, No. 6, pp. 790-803.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1970. Soil Moduli and Damping Factors for Dynamic Response Analysis.
Report No. EERC 70-10, University of California, Berkeley.
Seed, H.B. and Idriss, I.M., 1971. “Simplified Procedure for Evaluating Soil Liquefaction Potential.”
ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, Vol. 97, No. SM9, pp. 1249-1273.
Seed, H.B., Wong, R. T., Idriss, I.M., and Tokimatsu, K., 1986. “Moduli and Damping Factors for
Dynamic Analyses of Cohesionless Soils.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 112, No.
11, pp. 1016-1032.
Seed, R.B. and Harder, L.F., 1990. “SPT-based Analysis of Cyclic Pore Pressure Generation and
Undrained Residual Strength.” Proceedings, H. Bolton Seed Memorial Symposium, University of
California, Berkeley, Vol. 2, pp. 351-376.
Stewart, J.P., Liu, A.H. and Choi, Y., 2003. “Amplification Factors for Spectral Acceleration in
Tectonically Active Regions.” Bulletin of Seismological Society of America, Vol. 93 No. n1 pp. 332-
352.
United States Geological Survey, 2002. Earthquake Hazards Program. Website link:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazmaps/
Vucetic, M. and Dobry, R. (1991). Effect of Soil Plasticity on Cyclic Response. Journal of
Geotechnical Engineering, Vo. 117, No. 1, pp. 89-107.
Yelin, T.S., Tarr, A.C., Michael, J.A., and Weaver, C.S., 1994. Washington and Oregon Earthquake
History and Hazards. USGS, Open File Report 94-226B.
Youd, T.L.; Idriss, I.M.; Andrus, R.D.; Arango, I.; Castro, G.; Christian, J.T.; Dobry, R.; Finn, W.D.;
Harder, L.; Hynes, M.E.; Ishihara, K.; Koester, J.P.; Liao, S.S.C.; Marcuson, W.F.; Martin, G.R.;
Mitchell, J.K.; Moriwaki, Y.; Power, M.S.; Robertson, P.K.; Seed, R.B. and Stokoe, K.H., 2001.
“Liquefaction Resistance of Soils: Summary Report from the 1996 NCEER and 1998 NCEER/NSF
Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 127, No. 10, pp. 817-833.
Youd, T.L.; Hansen, C.M. and Bartlett, S.F., 2002. “Revised Multilinear Regression Equations for
Prediction of Lateral Spread Displacement.” ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, Vol. 128, No. 12, pp. 1007-1017.
STEP 1
CSZ Interplate Earthquakes Deep Intraplate Earthquake Crustal, Areal, or “Gridded” Seismicity
M 8.3 and M 9.0 Very small contribution to PGA Obtain M-R pairs from USGS de-
as defined by the USGS hazard in most of Oregon aggregation tables for all regional
Confirm on De-Aggregation tables Define criteria for selecting all M-R pairs
by checking for representative M-R that significantly contribute to the overall
pairs seismic hazard
STEP 2
Select Appropriate Ground Motion Attenuation Relationships for each Source and Style of Faulting
Calculate the bedrock PGA values for each M-R pair
STEP 3
STEP 4
STEP 5
Compute the Factor of Safety against Liquefaction for each M-R Pair
Use the averaged CSR profile for each M-R pair
Utilize standard methods for liquefaction susceptibility evaluation based on penetration resistance or shear wave velocity
Use drained shear • Estimate the residual Estimate the residual undrained
strengths excess pore pressure strength using two or more
• Compute the methods
equivalent friction angle
STEP 7
STEP 8
STEP 9
No
Is there a
possibility of
bridge collapse?
Yes Proceed with Mitigation Design
Alternatives (Note 3)
Note 1: For meeting the performance requirements of the 500 year return event (serviceability), lateral deformation of
approach fills of up to 12” are generally considered acceptable under most circumstances pending an evaluation of this
amount of lateral deformation on abutment piling. Larger lateral deformations and settlements may be acceptable under
the 1000 year event as long as the “no-collapse” criteria are met.
Note 2: The bridge should be open to emergency vehicles after the 500-year design event, following a thorough
inspection. If the estimated embankment deformations (vertical or horizontal or both) are sufficient enough to cause
concerns regarding the serviceability of the bridge mitigation is recommended.
Note 3: Refer to ODOT research report SPR Project 361: “Assessment and Mitigation of Liquefaction Hazards to Bridge
Approach Embankments in Oregon”, Nov. 2002 and FHWA Demonstration Project 116; “Ground Improvement Technical
Summaries, Volumes I & II”, (Pub. No. FHWA-SA-98-086) for mitigation alternatives and design procedures.
As a general guideline, the foundation mitigation should extend from the toe of the end slope to a point that is located at
the base of a 1:1 slope which starts at the end of the bridge end panel:
Existing Grade Bridge End Panel (typ. 30 ft.)
2:1 (typ.)
1:1
Original Ground
Limits of Mitigation
Volume 1 ODOT Geotechnical Design Manual
59 April 2010
Chapter
7
7 Slope Stability Analysis
7.1 General
Slope stability analysis is used in a wide variety of geotechnical engineering problems, including, but
not limited to, the following:
Determination of stable cut and fill slopes
Assessment of overall stability of retaining walls, including global and compound stability
(includes permanent systems and temporary shoring systems)
Assessment of overall stability of shallow and deep foundations for structures located on
slopes or over potentially unstable soils, including the determination of lateral forces applied
to foundations and walls due to potentially unstable slopes
Stability assessment of landslides (mechanisms of failure, and determination of design
properties through back-analysis), and design of mitigation techniques to improve stability
Evaluation of instability due liquefaction
Types of slope stability analyses include rotational slope failure, sliding block analysis, irregular
surfaces of sliding, and infinite slope failure. Stability analysis techniques specific to rock slopes,
other than highly fractured rock masses, that can in effect be treated as soil, are described in
Chapter 12. Detailed stability assessment of landslides is described in Chapter 13.
If these charts are to be used, it is recommended that a cohesion value of 50 to 100 psf be
used in combination with the soil friction angle obtained from SPT correlation for relatively
clean sands and gravels.
Soil parameters: For silty to very silty sands and gravels, the cohesion could be increased to
100 to 200 psf, but with the friction angle from SPT correlation (see Chapter 5) reduced by 2
to 3 degrees, if it is not feasible to obtain undisturbed soil samples suitable for laboratory
testing to measure the soil shear strength directly. This should be considered general
guidance, and good engineering judgment should be applied when selecting soil parameters
for this type of an analysis. Simplified design charts should only be used for final design of
non-critical slopes that are 10 ft in height or less and that are consistent the simplified
assumptions used by the design chart. Simplified design charts may be used as applicable
for larger slopes for preliminary design. The detailed guidance for slope stability analysis
provided by Abramson, et al. (1996) should be used.
7.5 References
Abramson, L., Boyce, G., Lee, T., and Sharma, S., 1996, Slope Stability and Stabilization Methods,
Wiley, ISBN 0471106224.
8
8 Foundation Design
8.1 General
8
This chapter covers the geotechnical design of bridge foundations, retaining wall foundations and
cut-and-cover tunnel foundations. Both shallow and deep foundation types are addressed.
Foundation design work entails assembling all available foundation information for a structure,
obtaining additional information as required, performing foundation analyses and compiling the
information into a report that includes the specific structure foundation recommendations. An
adequate site inspection, office study, appropriate subsurface exploration program and
comprehensive foundation analyses that result in foundation recommendations are all necessary to
construct a safe, cost-effective structure. See Chapter 21 for guidance on the foundation information
that should be included in Geotechnical Reports. See Chapter 2 for guidance on foundation
information available through office studies and the procedures for conducting a thorough site
reconnaissance.
Unless otherwise stated in this manual, the Load and Resistance Factor Design approach (LRFD)
shall be used for all foundation design projects, as prescribed in the most current version of the
AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. The ODOT foundation design policies and standards
described in this chapter supersede those in the AASHTO LRFD specifications. FHWA design
manuals are also acceptable for use in foundation design and preferable in cases where foundation
design guidance is not adequately provided in AASHTO. Structural design of bridge foundations, and
other structure foundations, is addressed in the ODOT Bridge Design and Drafting Manual (BDDM).
It is important to establish and maintain close communication between the geotechnical designer and
the structural designer at all times throughout the entire foundation design process and continuing
through construction.
Spread Footings
Spread footings are typically very cost effective, given the right set of conditions. Footings work best
in hard or dense soils that have adequate bearing resistance and exhibit tolerable settlement under
load. Footings can get rather large in less dense soils such as medium dense sand or stiff clays
depending on the structure loads and settlement requirements. Structures with tall columns or with
high lateral loads which result in large eccentricities and footing uplift loads may not be suitable
candidates for footing designs. Footings are not allowed or cost-effective where soil liquefaction can
occur at or below the footing level. Other factors that affect the cost feasibility of spread footings
include:
the need for a cofferdam and seals when placed below the water table,
the need for significant over-excavation and replacement of unsuitable soils,
the need to place footings deep due to scour, liquefaction or other conditions,
the need for significant shoring to protect adjacent existing facilities, and
inadequate overall stability when placed on slopes that have marginally adequate stability.
Settlement (service limit state criteria) often controls the feasibility of spread footings. The amount of
footing settlement must be compatible with the overall bridge design. The superstructure type and
span lengths usually dictate the amount of settlement the structure can tolerate and footings may still
be feasible and cost effective if the structure can be designed to tolerate the estimated settlement
(e.g., flat slab bridges, bridges with jackable abutments, etc.). Footings may not be feasible where
expansive or collapsible soils are present near the bearing elevation. Refer to the FHWA
Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 6, Shallow Foundations, for additional guidance on the
selection and use of spread footings.
Deep Foundations
Deep foundations are the next choice when spread footings cannot be founded on competent soils or
rock at a reasonable cost. Deep foundations are also required at locations where footings are
unfeasible due to extensive scour depths, liquefaction or lateral spread problems. Deep foundations
may be installed to depths below these susceptible soils to provide adequate foundation resistance
and protection against these problems. Deep foundations should also be used where an
unacceptable amount of spread footing settlement may occur. Deep foundations should be used
where right-of-way, space limitations, or other constraints as discussed above would not allow the
use of spread footings.
Two general types of deep foundations are typically considered: pile foundations, and drilled shaft
foundations. The most economical deep foundation alternative should be selected unless there are
other controlling factors. Shaft foundations are most advantageous where very dense intermediate
strata must be penetrated to obtain the desired bearing, uplift, or lateral resistance, or where
materials such as boulders or logs must be penetrated. Shafts may also become cost effective where
a single shaft per column can be used in lieu of a pile group with a pile cap, especially when a
Rn ≥ (ΣγiQi)/ϕdyn
For scour conditions, the resistance that the piles must be driven to needs to account for the
resistance in the scour zone that will not be available to contribute to the resistance required under
the extreme event (scour) limit state. The total driving resistance, Rndr, needed to obtain Rn, is
therefore:
Rndr = Rn + Rscour
Note that Rscour remains unfactored in this analysis to determine Rndr.
Pile design for scour is illustrated further in Figure 8-2, where,
Rscour = skin friction which must be overcome during driving through scour zone (KIPS)
Qp = (ΣγiQi) = factored load per pile (KIPS)
Dest. = estimated pile length needed to obtain desired nominal resistance per pile (FT)
ϕdyn = resistance factor
8.13.2 Scour
The effect of scour shall be considered in the determination of the shaft penetration. The shaft
foundation shall be designed so that the shaft penetration and resistance remaining after the design
scour events satisfies the required nominal axial and lateral resistance. For this calculation, it shall be
assumed that the soil lost due to scour does not contribute to the overburden stress in the soil below
the scour zone. The shaft foundation shall be designed to resist debris loads occurring during the
flood event in addition to the loads applied from the structure.
Resistance factors for use with scour are described in Section 8.9.2. The axial resistance of the
material lost due to scour shall not be included in the shaft resistance.
8.14 Micropiles
Micropiles shall be designed using an allowable stress approach in accordance with the FHWA
Reference Manual titled; “Micropile Design and Construction” (Publication No. FHWA NHI-05-039).
8.15 References
AASHTO, 2007. AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, Fourth Edition.
Bowles, J., 1988. “Foundation Analysis and Design”, 4th Edition, McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Briaud, J., and Tucker, L., 1997. “Design and Construction Guidelines for Downdrag on Uncoated
and Bitumen-Coated Piles”, NCHRP Report 393, Transportation Research Board, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C.
Briaud, J., 1989. “The Pressuremeter for Highway Applications”, FHWA-IP-89-008, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Briaud, J. and Miran, J., 1992. “The Cone Penetrometer Test”, FHWA-IP-91-043, Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, D.C.
Samtani, N. and Nowatzki, E. 2006. “Soils and Foundations Reference Manual, Volumes I and II”,
FHWA-NHI-06-088, Washington, DC.
Elias, V., Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R.R., 2001, Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and
Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration,
FHWA-NHI-00-043 (FHWA, 2001).
Gifford, D. G., J. R. Kraemer, J. R. Wheeler, and A. F. McKown. 1987. “Spread Footings for Highway
Bridges.” FHWA/RD-86/185. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation,
Washington, DC, p. 229.
Kavazanjian, E., Jr., Matasoviæ, T. Hadj-Hamou and Sabatini, P.J. 1997. “Geotechnical Engineering
Circular No. 3, Design Guidance: Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering for Highways,” Report No.
FHWA-SA-97-076, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Moulton, L. K., H. V. S. GangaRao, and G. T. Halverson. 1985. “Tolerable Movement Criteria for
Highway Bridges,” FHWA/RD-85/107. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC, p. 118.
O’Neill, M. W. and Reese, L. C. 1999, Drilled Shafts: Construction Procedures and Design
Methods, Report No. FHWA-IF-99-025, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
Oregon Department of Transportation, Bridge Design and Drafting Manual, Bridge Engineering
Section, 2004.
Oregon Department of Transportation, ODOT Soil and Rock Classification Manual", Geo-
Environmental Section, 1987.
Reese, L. C. 1984. “Handbook on Design of Piles and Drilled Shafts Under Lateral Load.” FHWA-IP-
84/11, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.
Reese, L. C., 1986. “Behavior of Piles and Pile Groups Under Lateral Load,”,Report No. FHWA/RD-
85/106, U. S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Engineering
and Highway Operations Research and Development, Washington D. C., 311
Richardson, E. V. and Davis, S. R. 2001. Hydraulic Engineering Circular No. 18, “Evaluating Scour
at Bridges,” 4th Edition, FHWA-NHI-01-001 HEC-18, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Sabatini, P.J., Bachus, R.C., Mayne, P.W., Schneider, J.A., and Zettler, T.E., 2002, Geotechnical
Engineering Circular No. 5, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5, Evaluation of Soil and
Rock Properties, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington,
D.C.
Sabatini, P.J., Tanyu, B., Armour, T., Groneck, P., Keeley, J., 2005. “Micropile Design and
Construction” (Reference Manual for NHI Course 132078), Federal Highway Administration Report
No. FHWA NHI-05-039, Washington, D.C.
9
9 Embankments – Analysis and
Design
9.1 General
This chapter addresses the analysis and design of rock and earth embankments. Also addressed
briefly are foundation improvement (ground improvement), the use of lightweight fill and settlement
and stability mitigation techniques. Bridge approach embankments, defined as fill under bridge ends,
are not covered in this chapter, but are addressed in Chapter 8 and in Chapter 6. The primary
geotechnical issues that impact embankment performance are overall (global) stability, internal
(slope) stability, settlement, material selection, compaction, and constructability. For the purposes of
this chapter, embankments include the following:
Rock embankments, also known as all-weather embankments, are defined as fills in which
the material is non-moisture-density testable and is composed of durable granular materials.
Earth embankments are fills that are typically composed of onsite or imported borrow, and
could include a wide variety of materials from fine to coarse grain. The material is usually
moisture-density testable.
Lightweight fills contain lightweight fill or recycled materials as a significant portion of the
embankment volume, and the embankment construction is specified by special provision.
Lightweight fills are most often used as a portion of the bridge approach embankment to
mitigate settlement or in landslide repairs to reestablish roadways.
Embankments under 10 feet high in areas of stable ground and with slopes flatter than 2:1 generally
do not require a detailed geotechnical investigation and analysis. These embankments can be
designed based on past experience with similar soils and on engineering judgment. Embankments
over 10 feet high, with steeper slopes, constructed in problem soil areas, or from specially designed
or unique materials will require a detailed geotechnical analysis, development of special provisions
and possibly details included in the contract plans.
9.2.1.1 A l l - We a t h e r E m b a n k m e n t M at e r i a l s
ODOT projects are increasingly being constructed within shorter time frames that may require
fill placement occurring at any time of the year. Clean, granular, all-weather embankment
materials allow the contractor the ability to properly place and compact fill materials year round.
Clean, granular fill material use also provides better access to work areas, and facilitates
construction staging and traffic detouring. The ODOT Standard Specifications identify 2
materials considered to be suitable for all-weather construction: Selected Stone Backfill (section
00330.15), and Stone Embankment Material (section 00330.16). Both of these materials have
in common the use of “durable” material, as defined in section 00110.20 Durable Rock.
Compaction tests cannot be applied to coarse material with any degree of accuracy; therefore, a
method specification approach is typically specified for granular embankments, as described in
section 00330.43 Non-Moisture Density Testable Materials.
9.2.1.2 D u r a b l e a n d N o n - Du r a b l e Ro c k M at e r i a l s
Special consideration should be given during design to the type of material that will be used in rock
embankments. In some areas of the state, moderately weathered or very soft rock may be
encountered in cuts and used as embankment fill. Follow these guidelines:
Degradable fine grained sandstone and siltstone are often encountered in the cuts and the
use of this material in embankments can result in significant long term settlement and stability
problems as the rock degrades, unless properly compacted with heavy tamping foot rollers
(Machan, et al., 1989). The slake durability test (ASTM D4644) should be performed if the
geologic nature of the rock source proposed indicates that poor durability rock is likely to be
encountered.
When the rock is found to be non-durable, it should be physically broken down and
compacted as earth embankment provided the material meets or exceeds common borrow
requirements. Special compaction requirements, defined by method specification, may be
needed for these materials. In general, tamping foot rollers work best for breaking down the
rock fragments. The minimum size roller should be about 30 tons. Specifications should
include the maximum size of the rock fragments and maximum lift thickness. These
9.2.1.3 E a r t h E m b a n k m en t s
Embankments constructed with common borrow materials must be placed in accordance with the
procedures of the ODOT Standard Specifications, section 00330 Earthwork. These specifications
are intended for use where it is not necessary to strictly control the strength properties of the
embankment material and where all-weather construction is not required.
9.2.3.1 S e t t l e m e n t An a l y si s
The key parameters for evaluating the amount of settlement below an embankment include
knowledge of:
The subsurface profile including soil types, layering, groundwater level and unit weights;
The compression indexes for primary, rebound and secondary compression from laboratory
test data, correlations from index properties, and results from settlement monitoring programs
completed for the site or nearby sites with similar soil conditions.
9.2.3.2 A n a l y t i c a l To o l s
The primary consolidation and secondary settlement can be calculated by hand or by using computer
programs such as EMBANK (FHWA, 1993). Alternatively, spreadsheet solutions can be easily
developed. The advantage of computer programs such EMBANK are that multiple runs can be made
quickly, and they include subroutines to estimate the increased vertical effective stress caused by the
embankment or other loading conditions.
9.4.4 Subexcavation
Subexcavation refers to excavating the soft compressible or unsuitable soils from below the
embankment footprint and replacing these materials with higher quality, less compressible material.
Because of the high costs associated with excavating and disposing of unsuitable soils as well as the
difficulties associated with excavating below the water table, subexcavation and replacement typically
only makes economic sense under certain conditions. Some of these conditions include, but are not
limited to:
The area requiring overexcavation is limited;
The unsuitable soils are near the ground surface and do not extend very deep (typically, even
in the most favorable of construction conditions, subexcavation depths greater than about 10
ft are in general not economical);
Temporary shoring and dewatering are not required to support or facilitate the excavation
and;
Suitable materials are readily available to replace the over-excavated unsuitable soils.
10
10 Soil Cuts - Analysis and Design
10.1 General
Soil cut slope design must consider many factors such as the materials and conditions present in the
slope, materials available or required for construction on a project, space available to make the
slopes, minimization of future maintenance and slope erosion. Soil slopes less 10 feet high are
generally designed based on past experience with similar soils and on engineering judgment. Cut
slopes greater than 6 to 10 feet in height usually require a more detailed geotechnical analysis.
Relatively flat (2H:1V or flatter) cuts in granular soil when groundwater is not present above the ditch
line, will probably not require rigorous analysis. Any cut slope where failure would result in large
rehabilitation costs or threaten public safety should obviously be designed using more rigorous
techniques. Situations that will warrant more in-depth analysis include:
large cuts,
cuts with irregular geometry,
cuts with varying stratigraphy (especially if weak zones are present),
cuts where high groundwater or seepage forces are likely,
cuts involving soils with questionable strength, or
cuts in old landslides or in formations known to be susceptible to landsliding.
A major cause of cut slope failure is related to reduced confining stress within the soil upon
excavation. Undermining the toe of the slope, increasing the slope angle, and cutting into heavily
overconsolidated clays have also resulted in slope failures. Careful consideration should be given to
preventing these situations by surcharging or buttressing the base of the slope, choosing an
appropriate slope angle (i.e., not oversteepening), and by keeping drainage ditches a reasonable
distance away from the toe of slope. Cutslopes in heavily overconsolidated clays may require special
mitigation measures, such as retaining walls rather than an open cut in order to prevent slope
deformation and reduction of soil strength to a residual value. Consideration should also be given to
establishing vegetation on the slope to prevent long-term erosion. It may be difficult to establish
vegetation on slopes with inclinations steeper than 2H:1V without the use of erosion mats or other
stabilization methods.
11
11 Ground Improvement
11.1 General
Ground improvement is used to address a wide range of geotechnical engineering problems,
including, but not limited to, the following:
Improvement of soft or loose soil to reduce settlement, increase bearing resistance, and/or to
improve overall stability of bridge foundations, retaining walls, and/or for embankments.
To mitigate liquefiable soils.
To improve slope stability for landslide mitigation.
To retain otherwise unstable soils.
To improve workability and usability of fill materials.
To accelerate settlement and soil shear strength gain.
Types of ground improvement techniques include the following:
Vibrocompaction techniques such as stone columns and vibroflotation, and other techniques
that use vibratory probes that may or may not include compaction of gravel in the hole
created to help densify the soil.
Deep dynamic compaction.
Blast densification.
Geosynthetic reinforcement of embankments.
Wick drains, sand columns, and similar methods that improve the drainage characteristics of
the subsoil and thereby help to remove excess pore water pressure that can develop under
load applied to the soil.
Grout injection techniques and replacement of soil with grout, such as compaction grouting,
jet grouting, and deep soil mixing.
Lime or cement treatment of soils to improve their shear strength and workability
characteristics.
Elias, V., Welsh, J., Warren, J., and Lukas, R., 2000, Ground Improvement Technical Summaries –
Vol. 1 and 2, Demonstration Project 116, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-98-086.
Hicks, R. G., 2002, Alaska Soil Stabilization Design Guide, Alaska Department of Transportation and
Federal Highway Administration Report No. FHWA-AK-RD-01-6B.
Kimmerling, R. E., 1994, Blast Densification for Mitigation of Dynamic Settlement and
Liquefaction, WSDOT Research Report WA-RD 348.1, 114 pp.
Mitchell, J. K., 1981, Soil Improvement: State-of-the-Art Report, Proceedings of the 10th International
Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden, pp. 509-565.
Rixner, J. J., Kraemer, S. R., and Smith, A. D., 1986, Prefabricated Vertical Drains - Vol. :
Engineering Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, FHWA/RD-86/168.
12
12 Rock Cuts – Analysis, Design and
Mitigation
12.1 General
This chapter discusses the analysis, design guidelines and standards for rock slopes adjacent to
highways. Rock slope design for material sources is discussed in Chapter 20.
12.2.3 Benches
For most rock slope designs, benches should be avoided. The need for benches will be evaluated in
the geology and geotechnical investigations and described in the resulting reports. The minimum
bench design should satisfy the requirements outlined in the Rockfall Catchment Area Design Guide.
The bench configuration may be controlled by the need to perform periodic maintenance which
requires access to the bench. Soil and rock slopes may need a modification with benches to conform
to the environment or for safety and economic concerns. Following are some appropriate bench
applications.
Benching may improve slope stability where continuous slopes are not stable.
Where maintenance due to sloughing of soil overburden may be anticipated, a bench will
provide access and working room at the overburden rock contact.
Developing an access bench may facilitate construction where the top of cut begins at an
intermediate slope location.
On very high cuts, benches may be included for safety where rockfall is expected during
construction.
Where necessary, benches may be located to intercept and direct surface water runoff and
groundwater seepage to an appropriate collection facility.
Det 2207 - Post Supported Wire Mesh Slope Protection and Post Supported Rock
Protection Screen Anchor Details
Det 2208 - Rock Protection Screen Behind Concrete Barrier or Guardrail Detail
Det 2209 - Rock Protection Screen Behind Concrete Barrier or Guardrail Detail
12.6 Specifications
The location of Standard Specifications and Special Provisions for items pertaining to rockslopes and
rockslope mitigation are listed in the next sections.
Pierson, L., Gullixson, C., and Chassie, R., 2001, Rockfall Catchment Area Design Guide, FHWA
Final Report SPR-3(032).
Konya, C., and Walter, E., 2003, Rock Blasting and Overbreak Control, 2nd ed., FHWA-HI-92-
001.
Muhunthan, B. et.al, 2005, Analysis and Design of Wire Mesh/Cable Net Slope Protection,
WashDOT, Final Research Report WA-RD 612.1.
Turner, A. K., and Schuster, R.L., 1996, Landslides: Investigation and Mitigation, TRB Special Report
247, National Academy Press.
Brawner, C. O., 1993, Manual of Practice on Rockfall Hazard Mitigation Methods, FHWA, National
Highway Institute Participant Workbook DTFH61-92-Z-00069.
Post Tensioning Institute, 1996, Recommendations for Prestressed Rock and Soil Anchors, Post
Tensioning Institute, Phoenix, Arizona.
Jones, C., Higgins, J., and Andrew, R., 2000, “CRSP ver. 4.0”, Colorado Rockfall Simulation
Program, Colorado DOT Report CDOT-SYMB-CGS-99-1.
Watts, C. F., 1996, “ROCKPACK II”, Rock Slope Stability Computerized Analysis Package, Users
Manual, C.F. Watts Assoc., Radford VA.
13
13 Slope Stability Analysis
13.1 General
14
14 Geosynthetic Design
14.1 General